Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

Joint documentation of regional coordination of Programmes of Measures in the Baltic Sea area 30.03.2016

Note: Annex 1 indicates some of the draft planned measures for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland that by 31 March 2016 have not yet concluded their national consultation processes on the national Programme of Measures.

2

Table of Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 3

1. Protecting the Baltic Sea marine ecosystems ................................................................................. 3

2. Regional coordination ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Implementation of the MSFD .............................................................................................. 4

2.2 National programmes of measures ..................................................................................... 5

2.3 Transboundary consultations .............................................................................................. 6

3. The HELCOM acquis......................................................................................................................... 7

4. Coordination of programmes of measures ..................................................................................... 8

5. Summary conclusions and next steps ........................................................................................... 29

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 30

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. 31

Annex 1 Overview of planned measures under consideration in HELCOM Contracting Parties .......... 33

Annex 2 Draft proposal for table on threatened species and biotopes ................................................ 43

Annex 3 Further actions to be considered ............................................................................................ 52

3

Summary This document gives an overview of the HELCOM acquis and its contribution to achieving good environmental status in the Baltic Sea Region. It describes the process and results of the regional coordination of measures and identifies opportunities for improved regional coherence of national measures and for additional joint regional actions. Possible actions for regional coordination and to reach HELCOM targets and objective have been recommended to HELCOM Working Groups and HOD for further consideration and specification as part of HELCOM’s work.

While the joint documentation contained in this document is specifically intended for the use by the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention being EU Member States in support of the establishment and reporting of regionally coordinated Programmes of Measures under Art. 13 of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the work towards an improved coordination of measures aims to benefit all Contracting Parties in HELCOM. It will result in filling in gaps identified in HELCOM work, such as the work on environmental targets for some major pressures on the Baltic Sea, and will provide an opportunity to reinforce the follow-up of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan.

1. Protecting the Baltic Sea marine ecosystems The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention), 1974 and 1992, requires the Contracting Parties, individually or jointly, to take all appropriate legislative, administrative or other relevant measures to prevent and eliminate pollution in order to promote the ecological restoration of the Baltic Sea area and the preservation of its ecological balance. This includes all appropriate measures to conserve natural habitats and biological diversity and to protect ecological processes.

The Convention enshrines the precautionary principle, the polluter-pays principle and the promotion of the use of Best Environmental Practice and Best Available Technology as part of the fundamental principles and obligations of the Contracting Parties. Since 2003, the management of human activities by HELCOM is guided by the ecosystem approach.

The Helsinki Convention, the Ministerial Declarations, the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), the Recommendations and other agreements adopted by the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) form the body of the already regionally agreed measures in HELCOM for the Baltic Sea, i.e. the ”HELCOM acquis”.

By the end of 2015, the HELCOM countries being EU Member States will have to establish regionally coordinated and coherent programmes of measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EU, MSFD). The Directive requires the Member States, among others, to take into account relevant measures required under Community legislation and international agreements when setting up their programmes of measures (Art. 13(2) MSFD).

It is to be noted that any inclusion of HELCOM acquis or other HELCOM measures by EU-Member States as a regional component of their national MSFD programmes of measures does not amend the legal nature of these measures, bearing in mind that Actions and Recommendations listed in the Acquis were often agreed well before setting the MSFD into force.

In support of the MSFD requirement and the continued implementation of the BSAP and its follow-up commitments, this document

− takes stock of the HELCOM acquis and points to the status of its implementation by the Contracting Parties,

4

− analyses the contribution of the HELCOM acquis to regional environmental objectives set for moving towards good environmental status under the BSAP and – where appropriate - the EU MSFD.

− takes stock of and analyses new national measures planned by HELCOM Contracting Parties to achieve good environmental status in their waters,

− identifies opportunities for improved coherence of national measures in the region and opportunities for additional joint regional actions, with a focus on transboundary issues.

Ultimately, the document is intended to provide a joint documentation for HELCOM EU Member States of their regional cooperation on, and coordination of, measures to reach good environmental status of the Baltic Sea Region under the EU MSFD. While the joint documentation is designed to support HELCOM EU Member States reporting under Art. 13(9) MSFD, the work on improved coordination of measures will benefit all Contracting Parties in HELCOM. Therefore, all HELCOM countries have been invited to contribute to the information exchange and associated evaluations.

2. Regional coordination 2.1 Implementation of the MSFD

The EU Commission’s assessment of EU Member States’ first implementation steps of the MSFD in 2012 highlighted certain weaknesses. This includes lack of quantification and shortcomings in the coherence of national approaches to defining good environmental status (Art. 9 MSFD) and setting environmental targets (Art. 10 MSFD). In the HELCOM input provided to MSFD CIS HELCOM EU countries inform how they intend to contribute to the CIS utilizing cooperation and activities in HELCOM.1 This includes work within HELCOM to develop coordinated programmes of measures (see box). A HELCOM plan to improve regional coherence in moving towards good environmental status in the Baltic Sea region has been drafted.2.

“Work towards developing coordinated programmes of measures, including joint elements, taking into account GEAR work and the HELCOM upcoming gap analysis, and develop as a first step coordinated measures on marine litter and noise. This implies support to agreement on a Marine Litter Baltic Action Plan in HELCOM (with a draft being available in early 2015 to be considered for public participation) in time for it to form a basis for Baltic EU Member States to take on board as a regional component of their Programme of Measures by 2015. Baltic Member States will also consider further opportunities for joint actions, elements of programmes of measures or coordinated programmes of measures, on the basis, i.a. of the results of the HELCOM gap analysis.” 3

Ideally, cost-efficient measures are devised by reference to environmental targets, which quantify the reduction of the pressures required for achieving or maintaining good environmental status, however this quantification is not a legal requirement in the MSFD. By doing so, environmental targets bridge the gap between the current status and the desired (good) status of the marine environment. It is, therefore, necessary and urgent to develop regionally coherent definitions of good environmental status as a basis for such marine strategies. This is taken forward by HELCOM through its work on status core indicators and assessment methods.

1 See Part 4 of Annex 4 to the MSFD CIS Work Plan as agreed by MD on 5 December 2014, https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/9a4d2960-16ec-4e21-b949-c8f06035b8dd/MSFD%20CIS%20future%20work%20programme%202014%20-%20beyond%20-%20final.pdf 2 Draft HELCOM plan to improve regional coherence in moving towards good environmental status in the Baltic Sea region is available here 3 See meeting conclusions https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/bb44ce45-694b-49c2-90cb-e8ae3e4bb99f/HELCOM%20regional%20meeting%20conclusions%20final%20clean.pdf

5

HELCOM has set a number of qualitative or general management objectives. However, a common approach to devising quantitative environmental targets for pressures and associated measures is available to date only for eutrophication (BSAP Nutrient reduction scheme4). The HELCOM countries have committed to explore similar joint approaches to coherent target setting and measures for other transboundary issues.

“Prioritise further areas where greater regional convergence can be achieved in relation to environmental targets by 2018 over and above the approach for nutrient pollution”.3

Science-based target setting and its application to management is a necessary as well as demanding and challenging task, which requires continued efforts beyond 2015. The starting point for developing environmental targets in other areas than eutrophication will be to develop joint principles for defining such targets for seafloor integrity/damage (2016) and underwater noise (2017/2018). Subsequently, pressures will be identified which would benefit from regionally agreed targets.

Regional Action Plans may provide a useful tool for developing comprehensive and quantified management strategies for other themes than eutrophication, following the latter example.

2.2 National programmes of measures The regional coordination of national programmes of measures in HELCOM includes:

− the exchange of information and alignment of measures that are primarily of national concern and responsibility;

− the development of measures and actions at regional level with a focus on transboundary issues;

− the development of joint proposals for measures that are required to achieve good environmental status but are in the competence of the EU, international organizations (e.g. IMO, International River Basin Commissions) or third countries outside the EU and HELCOM (e.g. upstream-countries), and the agreement of concerted actions of the Contracting Parties to approach those bodies/countries through HELCOM.

The coordination process allows ensuring that national measures have a positive impact on waters under the jurisdiction of neighbouring countries and contribute to achieving or maintaining good environmental status at regional scale.

The coordination process has been taken forward in a two-step approach through the HELCOM Group for the implementation of the ecosystem approach (GEAR) and a temporal intersessional group on programmes of measures (IG PoM), set up by GEAR for this purpose:

− in 2014, Contracting Parties started sharing information on the national measures, which they consider necessary to achieve good environmental status in their waters;

− in 2015, the emphasis shifted to the analysis of proposed national measures by GEAR and other HELCOM subsidiary bodies with a view to identifying opportunities for improved coherence, joint approaches and regional actions and measures.

The coordination process needed to take account of the different timetables of the Contracting Parties’ procedures to develop draft national programmes of measures and to submit them to public consultation (see table below).

4 http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/nutrient-reduction-scheme/

6

The timetable of public consultation processes of HELCOM EU Member States in relation to the development of MSFD programmes of measures are set out in the following table:

Public consultation of national MSFD programmes of measures of HELCOM countries being EU Member States DE DK EE FI LT LV PL SE 1.04.–30.09.2015

tbc New measures: 16.09-14.10.2015 Whole PoM 15.04.–30.04.2016

15.1-31.3.2015

14.10.2015– 16.4.2016

03.-04.2016

8.03-29.03.2016

01.02 –30.04. 2015

An interim draft of this report had been prepared in February 2015 to document work in progress and to allow interested EU-Member States an early inclusion of regionally available information on regional coordination in national public consultation procedures under the MSFD. The interim draft provided a snapshot of the state of play at the time of possible measures under consideration in HELCOM countries and was not formally adopted by HELCOM Contracting Parties. Based on an analysis of planned national measures, Annex 1 provides an overview of the issues addressed and shared by Contracting Parties in their programmes of measures (status 28 February 2016) and their link to regional coordination processes.

Based on the shared measure topics, Contracting Parties identified possible additional opportunities for regional coordination in HELCOM for the following themes:

− input of nutrients and organic matter, − inputs of synthetic and non-synthetic contaminants and systematic contaminants and/or

intentional releases of substances, − accidental pollution from maritime activities, − spatial protection measures, − conservation, restoration and reintroduction of species, − physical loss and damage to the seafloor, − selective extraction and incidental by-catch of species, − introduction of non-indigenous species, − input of litter, − input of energy, including underwater noise.

2.3 Transboundary consultations Contracting Parties used HELCOM GEAR and the UNECE Seminar on Cooperation under the Espoo Convention in the Baltic Sea Subregion to exchange information on national strategic environmental assessments of their programmes of measures and to coordinate their approaches to transboundary consultation processes under the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (UNECE SEA Protocol) to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a transboundary context (UNECE Espoo Convention). HELCOM Contracting Parties agreed practical arrangements for notifying and informing Baltic Sea countries under the SEA Protocol about their programmes of measures and the findings regarding likely significant effects of their programmes on other Baltic Sea countries’ waters, and for inviting for participation in their public consultations. By 28 February 2016, transboundary participation had taken place by Sweden, participating in the Finnish and German public consultations of programmes of measures), and by Finland and Estonia, participating in the Swedish public consultation of programmes of measures.

7

3. The HELCOM acquis By 2015, HELCOM had adopted some 265 Recommendations and a wealth of other agreements in order to tackle the pressures acting on the Baltic Sea environment and to improve the state of marine ecosystems. Over the past decades a substantial part of the HELCOM measures have been implemented. At the same time, the EU has increasingly covered the field of HELCOM‘s work, providing an additional driving force for the HELCOM countries being EU Member States to take action and to ensure the implementation of a consistent set of measures in the Baltic Sea region. The following documentation highlights selected HELCOM measures in support of achieving good environmental status. Specific focus is given to measures adopted with the BSAP in 2007 and since then.

The 2007 Baltic Sea Action Plan sets out the priorities for future actions and provides a package of measures to address the four themes of eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity and maritime safety. The BSAP, complemented by the commitments resulting from the HELCOM Ministerial Meetings in 2010 and 2013, and existing Recommendations reflect the HELCOM acquis in relation to the four themes and is the foundation for the development of regionally coordinated programmes of measures.5

The HELCOM acquis includes regional frameworks for coordinated national measures as well as joint initiatives of the Contracting Parties. Such regionally concerted actions have led to international measures covering the entire Baltic Sea, e.g. the designation of the Baltic Sea as SOX Emission Control Area under IMO MARPOL Annex VI (air pollution) and as a special area under Annex V (garbage), or to a harmonized implementation of international measures in the region such as the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention.

An assessment of the implementation status of the HELCOM acquis has been done largely for the 2013 Ministerial Meeting6. It is planned to start in 2016 to put in place an online-management tool providing latest information on the implementation of the BSAP, Ministerial Declarations and HELCOM Recommendations.

The 2013 implementation assessment evaluated the progress on the implementation of the BSAP and follow-up commitments, including the implementation of HELCOM Recommendations on land-based pollution adopted since 20077. This assessment identified gaps in the implementation of agreed measures and the need for additional measures to achieve the objectives of the BSAP. The 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration draws on the mentioned assessment and represents an agreement among the Baltic Sea countries and the EU on further action needed, including measures at all levels (national, regional, EU and global). The present coordination process can be seen as a follow-up of these further actions.

The segments of the BSAP address many of the pressures which require consideration under the MSFD in relation to the eleven descriptors (D) for good environmental status. Yet, the BSAP does not cover all pressures. Marine litter, underwater noise and physical damage and loss of the seafloor are not, or not adequately, covered. These pressures have been identified by the HELCOM Ministers in 2010 and

5 Annex 4, Part 4, of the MSFD CIS Work Plan 2014-Beyond https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/9a4d2960-16ec-4e21-b949-c8f06035b8dd/MSFD%20CIS%20future%20work%20programme%202014%20-%20beyond%20-%20final.pdf 6http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Supporting/BSAP_Overview_with%20cover.pdf 7http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Background/Reporting%20on%20recent%20HELCOM%20Recs-LAND.pdf

8

2013 as areas requiring action. Other areas such as nutrient reduction, a well-managed coherent MPA network and the conservation of species, require intensification of existing efforts.

4. Coordination of programmes of measures The thematic sections in this chapter describe the coordination of regional measures. Annex 3 complements the sections with proposed further actions on regional coordination under consideration by HELCOM. Coordination has been structured around the most important pressures acting on the Baltic Sea and spatial and restoration measures related to nature conservation. The thematic sections broadly reflect, and can be assigned to, the key type measures set up by the EU Commission as a means to structure EU Member State reporting under Art. 13(9) MSFD8. The structure of the chapter allows the HELCOM countries being EU Member States to link up their national reports with the thematic sections.

Each thematic cluster contains links to the state of the environment via descriptors of good environmental status and status core indicators as well as to the most crucial human activities or sectors causing the pressure. This structuring outlines the linkages along the drivers (D)-pressures (P)-state (S)-impact (I) chain and shows how the measures (response (R)) can be expected to act along that DPSIR chain.

The 2010 Holistic assessment of the ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea9 provides regional information on state, impacts and pressures. The assessment concluded that the most prominent pressures acting on the Baltic Sea ecosystems are eutrophication and different methods of fishing. Eutrophication resulting from nutrient enrichment remains a main Baltic Sea-wide problem, which impacts the functioning of marine ecosystems and counter-acts nature conservation efforts. Commercial fishing also results in a widespread pressure, and the elimination of top predators from the food chain remains a major concern. Especially bottom trawling affects large areas of the seafloor and associated biodiversity. Also other activities such as construction works, dredging and the disposal of dredged material disturb the seafloor and can have impacts on local marine environments. Shipping and offshore activities contribute to contaminant pollution and are accountable for accidental or illegal oil spills.

The HELCOM Ministers in their Declarations of Moscow (2010) and Copenhagen (2013) recognised the pressures from marine litter and noise-generating activities on marine organisms and the need to act on them.

4.1 Inputs of nutrients and organic matter

State or impact Eutrophication (MSFD descriptor 5) is one of the main threats to the biodiversity of the Baltic Sea and is caused by excessive inputs of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) mainly from land based sources such as agriculture, municipal waste water, transport and combustion activities. At sea, airborne emissions and waste water discharges from ships are the greatest source of nutrient inputs. Eutrophication is assessed through HELCOM status core indicators:

8 Link to the EU COM CIS Recommendation on programmes of measures, https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/26f71a0d-bf1a-4914-a9f6-8fad0b49deb0/MD2014-2-2%20Item%202%202_REV_CIS%20Updated%20POM%20recommendation_with%20comments%2021.11.2014.pdf 9 HOLAS I assessment report BSEP 122. On the main pressures and impacts as well as priorities for actions see Chapter 4 of the HOLAS I assessment report. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP122.pdf

9

− Average DIN concentration in the surface (0 – 10 m) during winter − Average DIP concentration in the surface (0 – 10 m) during winter − Average chlorophyll-a concentration in the surface (0 – 10 m) during

summer − Average Secchi depth during summer − Average oxygen debt below halocline

Impacts on species and biotopes

Excessive inputs of nutrients and organic matter impact the overall water quality and ecosystem functioning, with main direct and indirect impacts on:

− Fish − Birds − Pelagic habitats − Benthic habitats

See Annex 2 for threatened species (in particular birds, fish, macrophytes and benthic invertebrates) and biotopes impacted by nutrient and organic matter inputs.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

Land-based activities − waterborne inputs from:

• agriculture and forestry • municipalities, industries and aquaculture

− airborne emissions from • transport and energy sector • other combustion activities

Seaborne activities − water borne discharges and inputs from:

• shipping • aquaculture

− airborne emissions from • shipping

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration: − Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAIs) of nutrients to the Baltic Sea are

792209 tonnes of nitrogen per year and 21716 tonnes of phosphorus per year.

− Country-wise Allocated Reduction Targets (CARTs) of nutrients were agreed for each Contracting Party by the HELCOM 2013 Ministerial Meeting. This is based on the assumption of reductions by shipping and other countries in the order of 28880 tonnes nitrogen per year and 800 tonnes phosphorus per year.

Assessment of the progress towards the achievement of the national reduction targets for the period 2010-2012 is expected to become available in 2015. A report of the related core pressure indicator on progress to reduce nutrients MAI has already been published on the HELCOM website. CART indicates how much HELCOM countries needs to reduce nutrient inputs compared to a reference period (1997-2003)

The country-wise reduction targets (CART) set by the 2013 Ministerial Declaration

Nitrogen t Phosphorus t

Denmark 2890 38 Estonia 1800 320 Finland 3030 356

10

Germany 7670 170 Latvia 1670 220 Lithuania 8970 1470 Poland 43610 7480 Russia 10380 3790 Sweden 9240 530 Reduction expectations towards other sources

Nitrogen t Phosphorus t

Baltic Sea shipping 6930 Other countries in catchment and transboundary input

21950 800

Total 118140 15174

HELCOM acquis Helsinki Convention: − Annex III

Baltic Sea Action Plan: − Eutrophication segment

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting Declaration (2010 or 2013): • updated MAI and CART from 2013 • any decisions regarding sectors on curbing loads

HELCOM Recommendations: − 28E-4, Amendments to Annex III “Criteria and measures concerning

the prevention of pollution from land - based sources” of the 1992 Helsinki Convention

− 28E-5, Municipal wastewater treatment − 28E-6, On-site wastewater treatment of single family homes, small

businesses and settlements up to 300 person equivalents − 28E-7, Measures aimed at the substitution of polyphosphates

(phosphorus) in detergents Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA), UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (including the Gothenburg Protocol), London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), EU Water Framework Directive, EU Nitrates Directive, EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, EU Industrial Emissions Directive, EU Directive on Port Reception Facilities, Water Code of the Russian Federation

Further actions to be considered

4.1.1 Management of [internal load/endogenous nutrient reserves] [accumulated nutrients / stored nutrients] 4.1.2 Intensifying HELCOM work to reduce airborne transboundary nitrogen input from outside of HELCOM area, in particular through the Gothenburg Protocol

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

HELCOM core indicator on progress in reducing nutrient inputs to reach Maximum Allowable Inputs. Assessment of progress towards country-wise allocated reduction targets (CART) under finalization

11

4.2 Inputs of synthetic and non-synthetic contaminants and systematic and/or intentional release of substances

State or impact Hazardous substances (MSFD descriptor 8) can accumulate in the marine food web up to levels which are toxic to marine organisms, particularly predators, and they may also represent a health risk for people through fish consumption. Certain contaminants may be hazardous because of their toxicity, persistence and bio-accumulating properties or because of their effects on hormone and immune systems. Contaminant status is assessed by means of the HELCOM core indicators:

− Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) − Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) − Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) − Polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins and furans − Polyaromatic hydrocarbons and their metabolites − Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury) − Tributyltin (TBT) and imposex − Radioactive substances

Impacts on species and biotopes

Inputs of contaminants impact overall water quality, with main impacts on: − Birds − Mammals − Fish − Cephalopods − Pelagic habitats − Benthic habitats

See Annex 2 for threatened species (in particular birds, fish and mammals) and biotopes impacted by inputs of contaminants.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

Land-based activities − waterborne losses from:

• municipalities, industries and products – heavy metals, PCB and pharmaceuticals

• agriculture – pharmaceuticals, pesticides − airborne emissions from

• car traffic and energy sector – PAH, heavy metals, dioxins • industrial emissions - PBDE, HBCDD, PFOS, PAH, PCB, heavy

metals, dioxins • combustion activities – heavy metals, PAH, dioxins

Seaborne activities − waterborne losses from:

• shipping – TBT, illegal discharges • aquaculture – pharmaceuticals

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

No common environmental targets for hazardous substances have been agreed. For illegal oil-spills a zero spill target is agreed. A pressure core indicator on oil spills is expected to be adopted in December 2015.

HELCOM acquis Helsinki Convention: − Article 5 and Annex I Harmful Substances − Part I of Annex III Criteria and measures concerning the prevention

of pollution from land-based sources − Annex VI Prevention of Pollution from offshore activities

12

− Regulation 3 on surveillance of illegal oil spills of Annex VII − Action Plan for the protection of the environment from offshore

platforms (“zero-discharge principle”) Baltic Sea Action Plan:

− Hazardous substances segment HELCOM Ministerial Meeting Declarations (2010 and 2013) HELCOM Recommendations:

− 28E-8, Environmentally friendly practices for the reduction and prevention of emissions of dioxins and other hazardous substances from small-scale combustion

− 29-1, Reduction of emissions from crematoria − 31E-1, Implementing HELCOM’s objective for hazardous substances − 31E-2, Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and

accumulators containing mercury, cadmium or lead − 31E-3, Cadmium in fertilizers − 31E-4, Proper handling of waste/landfilling − 36-2, Management of dredged material − 26/3, Monitoring of radioactive substances − 18-2, offshore activities

Other HELCOM measures: HELCOM Maritime and Response initiatives

Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Minamata Convention on Mercury, EU Water Framework Directive, EU Environmental Quality Standards Directive, EU Industrial Emissions Directive, , EU Large Combustion Plants Directive, EU Waste Incineration Directive, EU Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Solvents Directive, Law on environment protection of the Russian Federation

Further actions to be considered

4.2.1 Micropollutants in effluents from wastewater treatment plants

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

HELCOM has agreed on a number of supporting parameters related to monitor trends in inputs of hazardous substances:

− Atmospheric deposition of heavy metals on the Baltic Sea − Atmospheric deposition of PBCDD/Fs on the Baltic Sea − Atmospheric emissions of heavy metals in the Baltic Sea region − Atmospheric emissions of PCDD/Fs in the Baltic Sea region − Emissions from Baltic Sea shipping − Illegal discharges of oil in the Baltic Sea − Liquid discharges of Cs-137, Sr-90 and Co-90 into the Baltic Sea

4.3 Accidental pollution from maritime activities

State or impact Accidental pollution from shipping, oil and gas exploration and exploitation and other offshore activities add to pollution of the marine environment with oil, hazardous substances and other substances and material (e.g. cargo). For the HELCOM status core indicators on hazardous substances see section 4.2.

13

For oil pollution and pollution with other substances and material, other than illegal discharges of oil, no specific core indicator exists. The indicator on polyaromatic hydrocarbons and their metabolites (section 4.2) is also relevant for oil pollution.

Impacts on species and biotopes

Accidental pollution impacts overall water quality, with main impacts on: − Birds − Mammals − Fish − Cephalopods − Pelagic habitats − Benthic habitats

See Annex 2 for threatened species (in particular birds) and biotopes impacted by accidental oil spills.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

The risk of pollution accidents in the Baltic Sea includes: − Leakages resulting from collisions and groundings of ships, with

potential for large volumes spilled − Leakages resulting from accidental pollution during bunkering and

loading of ships, commonly involving smaller volumes − Leakages from storage tanks of oil or other substances in coastal

facilities − Leakages from wrecks and lost cargo (consequences of accidents) − Leakages from oil rigs in the Baltic Sea (Poland and Russia)

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

There are no common quantitative environmental targets. BSAP objectives:

− Safe maritime traffic without accidental pollution − Efficient emergency and response capability

HELCOM acquis Prevention of pollution incidents from ships Helsinki Convention

− Article 8, 9 and 13 and Annex IV on Prevention of pollution from ships – both sizeable ships (IMO regulated) and pleasure crafts

Baltic Sea Action Plan segment on maritime activities HELCOM Ministerial Declarations 2010 and 2013 HELCOM Recommendations:

− 34E-2, Further testing and developing the concept of pro-active route planning as well as other e-navigation solutions to enhance safety of navigation and protection of the marine environment in the Baltic Sea Region

− 31E-5, Mutual plan for places of refuge in the Baltic Sea area − 28-11, Further measures to improve the safety of navigation in ice

conditions in the Baltic Sea − 28-3, Guidelines on bunkering operations and ship to ship cargo

transfer of oils, subject to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, in the Baltic Sea area

− 28-2, Recording of fuel oil bunkering operations in the oil record book and documentation for the use of reception facilities

− 25-5, Assessment of the need for escort towing in tanker transport routes to prevent accidents in the Baltic Sea area

− 33-1, Unified interpretation in relation to access to and use of HELCOM AIS

14

Other HELCOM Measures HELCOM-Baltic Sea Hydrographic Commission Harmonized Re-survey Scheme 2013 Response to pollution incidents Helsinki Convention:

− Article 14 and Annex VII Response to Pollution accidents – both accidents at sea and at the shore

Baltic Sea Action Plan: − Segment on maritime activities

HELCOM Ministerial Declarations 2010 and 2013 HELCOM Recommendations:

− 36-3, Marine pollution incident reporting and requests for assistance between Contracting Parties in the Baltic Sea area

− 34E-4, Airborne surveillance with remote sensing equipment in the Baltic Sea Area

− 31E-6, Integrated wildlife response planning in the Baltic Sea area − 33-3, Reporting on incidents involving harmful substances and

emergency dumping − 33-2, Co-operation in response to spillages of oil and other harmful

substances on the shore − 31-1, Development of national ability to respond to spillages of oil

and other harmful substances − 28-2, Recommendation concerning recording of fuel oil bunkering

operations in the oil record book and documentation for the use of reception facilities

− 24-9, Ensuring adequate emergency capacity − 31E-5, Mutual plan for places of refuge in the Baltic Sea area − 28E-12, Strengthening of sub-regional cooperation in response field − 23-2, Co-operation and assistance to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and

Russia in the field of combatting marine pollution incidents − actions, Restricted use of chemical agents and other non-mechanical

means in oil combatting operations in the Baltic Sea − 20-5, Minimum ability to respond to oil spillages in oil terminals − 19-17, Measures in order to combat pollution from offshore units − 17-12, Measures to abate pollution by oil and other harmful

substances in cases of grounding, collision, sinking of a ship or other maritime casualty

− 12-7, Special cooperation in case of a chemical tanker accident in the Baltic Sea

Other HELCOM Measures HELCOM Response Manual (sea and shore response, wildlife response, chemical) HELCOM tool SeaTrackWeb to forecast and hind-cast the fate of spilled oil

Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), 1990 Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969

15

Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1992 International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001

Further actions to be considered

4.3.1 Regional risk assessment tool for ships

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

Illegal pollution as observed from aerial surveillance (HELCOM Annual illegal spills report)

Ship accidents in the Baltic Sea region (HELCOM Annual accident report)

4.4 Spatial protection measures

State or impact Spatial protection measures comprise the spatial management and/or restrictions of human activities under various policies (e.g. nature conservation, shipping, fisheries, spatial planning). Coastal and Marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas (HELCOM MPAs10) aim to protect valuable marine and coastal species and habitats in the Baltic Sea. This is done by designating suitable areas which have particular nature values and by managing human activities within those areas. For effective protection, the MPAs should be part of a network that takes into account connectivity, e.g. the possibility for larvae to disperse between the protected areas. This is done by considering the size and spacing between the MPAs and the representation of different kinds of species and habitats. In this way the network can protect the environment better than individual MPAs. Effective protection requires a management plan for each MPA. Spatial protection is a measure towards achieving:

− BSAP goal: A favourable conservation status of Baltic Sea biodiversity − GES for MSFD descriptors: Biological diversity is maintained

(descriptor 1). All elements of marine food webs occur at normal abundance (descriptor 4) and Seafloor integrity ensures the structure and function of ecosystems (descriptor 6).

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

Regional targets stem from HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 System of Coastal and Marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas (HELCOM MPAs). The recent overview assesses the current situation in relation to the set targets.

− At least 10% of the marine area in all sub-basins of the Baltic Sea including the EEZ areas beyond territorial waters is covered by MPAs where scientifically justified. Analyzed most recently in 201311: − the target has been reached for the Baltic Sea as a whole (11.7%

in 2013) but not in the Baltic Proper and the Gulf of Bothnia − protected areas in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) have not

increased between 2010 and 2013, with 4.6% of the EEZ protected in 2013.

− An ecologically coherent network of protected areas – analyzed most recently in 2010 (BSEP 124A and B), concluding, e.g. that:

10 Former BSPAs 11 Overview of the status of the network of Baltic Sea marine protected areas. Approved for publishing by HELCOM HOD 42/2

16

− criteria of adequacy met in terms of size of protected areas but not in the sense that e.g. the majority of protected areas are effected by eutrophication

− a set of indicator species and biotopes was, with a few exceptions, found to be represented in the Baltic Sea wide network of MPAs, but offshore areas were poorly represented

− a set of indicator species and biotopes was found to be adequately replicated in the MPA network, but a number of broad-scale landscapes were found not be adequately replicated

− good connectivity was only found for the species with the dispersal distance >100 kilometers, and poor connectivity of many landscape types.

− Management plans in place by 2015 / five years after MPA designation, harmonized for neighboring MPAs in transboundary areas - in 2013: − 111 (64%) of the HELCOM MPAs had a management plan in force.

42 (24 %) had a management plan in preparation, and 21 (12 %) had no management plan.

− A planned assessment of management plans can be used to provide an estimate of the distance from the target set for 2015.

− HELCOM MPAs should provide specific protection to those species, habitats, biotopes and biotope complexes included in the HELCOM Red Lists (HELCOM Recommendation 35/1): Not systematically analysed yet.

− HELCOM MPAs included as areas of particular ecological significance in coastal and maritime spatial planning processes and their management provisions incorporated in spatial plans and Integrated Marine and Coastal Management Strategies: Not systematically analysed yet.

HELCOM acquis Helsinki Convention: − Article 15 Nature conservation and biodiversity

Baltic Sea Action Plan: − Biodiversity segment

HELCOM Ministerial Meeting Declaration (2013), e.g.: − Species, habitats and biotopes included in the HELCOM Red List are

priorities for protection − Measures to halt the loss of all threatened marine habitats and

biotopes in the Baltic Sea should be taken, their recovery should be facilitated, their degradation and fragmentation should be significantly reduced by 2020

HELCOM Recommendations: − 35/1, System of Coastal and Marine Baltic Sea Protected Areas

(HELCOM MPAs)12 Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

Convention on Biological Diversity, agreement to establishment of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs). Natura 2000 network comprised of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated under the EU Habitats Directive, and incorporating Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the EU Birds Directive. Ramsar sites designated under the Ramsar Convention of Wetlands.

12 Former BSPAs

17

Emerald network, made up of Areas of Special Conservation Interest established under the Bern Convention. Directive 2014/89/EU: Establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning.

Further actions to be considered

4.4.1 Coordination of management measures of pressures and impacts on MPAs, in particular for adjacent transnational MPAs

4.4.2 How to consider MPAs in Maritime Spatial Planning and vice versa? 4.4.3 Develop joint tools/approach for assessing effectiveness of spatial

protection measures for individual sites as well as network level Indicators for follow-up of regional actions and measures

Under development

4.5 Conservation, restoration and/or reintroduction of speciesand biotopes/habitats

State or impact Conservation plans, restoration and reintroduction are measures to improve the state of species and habitats and towards achieving:

− BSAP goal: A favourable conservation status of Baltic Sea biodiversity

− GES for MSFD descriptors: Biological diversity (descriptor 1), Food webs (descriptor 4) and Seafloor integrity (descriptor 6).

Activities - Spatial protection measures (see section 4.4), Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and other spatial regulations

- Reinstatement/restoration activities for species and habitats/biotopes

- Any specific species or biotope –wise measures, not being part of the previous chapter

- HELCOM Sturgeon Project with the goal to re-establish viable natural populations of Baltic Sea sturgeon by conducting releases in Germany and Poland in the Odra and Vistula river areas (already some 50.000 juveniles released) and the development of a HELCOM Sturgeon Action Plan

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration: − ‘…by 2020, regionally, the loss of all red listed marine habitats and

biotopes in the Baltic Sea will be halted and they have largely recovered, and the degradation and fragmentation have been significantly reduced…’

HELCOM acquis Helsinki Convention: − Article 15 Nature conservation and biodiversity

Baltic Sea Action Plan: − Biodiversity segment, including the Ecological objective: habitats,

including associated species, show a distribution, abundance and quality in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions

2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration, e.g.: − species, habitats and biotopes included in the HELCOM Red List are

priorities for protection − conservation plans for species, habitats and biotopes at risk of

extinction should be established by 2015

18

− protect sturgeon through supporting the HELCOM project on Baltic sturgeon remediation…

− protect the ringed seal in the Gulf of Finland, … immediate action is needed to significantly reduce by-catch and to improve the understanding of the other direct threats on the seals…

− take decisive action to work towards a favourable conservation status of the harbor porpoise … in particular by addressing the pressing problem of by-catch

HELCOM Recommendations: − 34E-1, Safeguarding important bird habitats and migration routes

in the Baltic Sea from negative effects of wind and wave energy production at sea

− 32–33-1 Conservation of Baltic salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta) populations by the restoration of their river habitats and management of river fisheries

− 19-2, Protection and improvement of the wild salmon *) (Salmo salar l.) populations in the Baltic Sea area

− 27-28-2, Conservation of seals in the Baltic Sea area − 28E-9, Development of broad-scale marine spatial planning

principles in the Baltic Sea area − 21-4, Protection of heavily endangered or immediately threatened

marine and coastal biotopes in the Baltic Sea area − 17-2, Protection of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea area − 37-2, Conservation of the Baltic Sea species categorized as

threatened according to the 2013 HELCOM Red List Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

ASCOBANS: Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas

Convention on Biological Diversity, Aichi targets, target 15: ‘By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.’ EU biodiversity strategy 2020 Target 2: By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems. Action 6: Set priorities to restore and promote the use of green infrastructure Target 4: Ensure that sustainable use of fisheries resources achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) by 2015. Achieve a population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock, through fisheries management with no significant adverse impacts on other stocks, species and ecosystems, in support of achieving Good Environmental Status by 2020, as required under the MSFD.

Further actions to be considered

4.5.1 Activities to support conservation of Baltic Sea species and biotopes/habitats categorized as threatened according to the HELCOM Red List

19

Indicators for follow-up of regional actions and measures

Proposed indicators to follow-up measures (under development): − New recommendations on conservation plans for threatened

species, biotopes, biotope complexes and habitats in place − Area of red listed marine habitats and biotopes

HELCOM status core indicators that are potentially useful to follow up effect of measures:

− Population growth rate, abundance and distribution of marine mammals

− Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season − Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season − Abundance of sea trout spawners and parr − Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt

Pre-core indicator: − Extent, pattern and distribution of benthic biotopes

Results of the upcoming (2019) Red list assessments on species and biotopes/habitats.

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

The pre-core indicator “Distribution, pattern and extent of benthic biotopes” will measure the reduction in degradation and fragmentation of biotopes caused by pressure on benthic biotopes.

4.6 Physical loss and damage of seabed habitats

Action on physical loss and damage State or impact Loss and fragmentation of seabed habitats is a major pressure on the Baltic

Sea biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Actions on physical loss and damage are measures towards achieving:

− BSAP goal: A favourable conservation status of Baltic Sea biodiversity.

− GES for MSFD descriptors: Seafloor integrity ensures the structure and function of ecosystems (descriptor 6), biological diversity is maintained (descriptor 6). All elements of the marine food web occur at normal abundance (descriptor 4).

The status of seabed habitats and associated communities are assessed through the HELCOM core indicators:

− State of the soft-bottom macrofauna communities − Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

and the pre-core indicators: − Cumulative impact on benthic biotopes − Distribution, pattern and extent of benthic biotopes

Impacts on species and biotopes

Physical loss or damage of seabed habitats impact: − Birds − Fish − Benthic habitats

See Annex 2 for threatened species (in particular fish, birds, benthic invertebrates, macrophytes) and biotopes impacted by the physical loss or damage of seabed habitats.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

Man-made structures: − Tourism/leisure infrastructure − Ports and other coastal constructions

20

− Offshore marine infrastructure (including associated with mineral and energy extraction)

− Cables & pipelines Extraction of non-living resources:

− Extraction of oil and gas − Extraction of sand and gravel − Extraction of rock & minerals

Extraction of living resources: − Fish & shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational), including

effects from bottom-contacting gear

Landscape restructuring: − Dredging and dumping of dredged material

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

No common quantitative HELCOM environmental targets have been agreed

HELCOM acquis Helsinki Convention: − Article 15 Nature conservation and biodiversity − Article 11 and Annex V requiring that dumping of dredged material

is subject to special permit Baltic Sea Action Plan:

− Biodiversity segment, including the Ecological objective: restoring and maintaining seafloor integrity at a level that safeguards the functions of the ecosystems.

HELCOM Ministerial Declaration (2013), e.g.: − 1K: develop assessment for c) impacts of fisheries on other species

and on the seabed, HELCOM Recommendations:

− 19-1, Marine Sediment Extraction in the Baltic Sea Area (including guidelines for sediment extraction)

− 17-3, Information and Consultation with regard to Construction of New Installations Affecting the Baltic Sea

− 21-4, Protection of Heavily Endangered or immediately Threatened Marine and Coastal Biotopes in the Baltic Sea Area

− 36-2, Management of Dredged Material Other HELCOM Measures HELCOM Guidelines for Management of Dredged Material at Sea

Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

Convention of Biological Diversity, Aichi targets, target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced. EU biodiversity strategy 2020, Target 2 Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services. Habitats Directive. Water code of the Russian Federation; the law on internal waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone of the Russian Federation; the law on environmental protection of the Russian Federation and subordinated legal acts.

Further actions to be considered

4.6.1 Development of joint principles for defining environmental targets for seabed habitats

21

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

Pressure indicators/data layers (VMS data for fishing activities, information on structures, dumping, etc.) in combination with core and pre-core state indicators (in particular cumulative impact on benthic habitats)

4.7 Selective extraction and incidental by-catch of species

State or impact The selective extraction of species refers to commercial and recreational fishing of targeted species, and also to hunting and collection of living organisms for non-food purposes. Selective fishing unavoidably results in the by-catch of non-target species such as benthic invertebrates, other fish species, seabirds, and marine mammals. By-catch is particularly critical for the population of species that are already threatened. Actions on selective extraction and incidental by-catch of species are measures towards achieving:

− BSAP ecological objectives: Thriving and balanced communities of plants and animals, and viable populations of species.

− GES for MSFD descriptors: Populations of commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological levels (descriptor 3), Biological diversity is maintained (descriptor 1), and all elements of the marine food web occur at normal abundances (descriptor 4).

HELCOM does not evaluate the status of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks. The status of some fish communities is evaluated through the HELCOM core indicators:

− Abundance of key coastal fish species − Abundance of key coastal fish functional groups − Proportion of large fish in the community (off-shore) − Abundance of seatrout spawners and parr − Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt

and status of mammals and birds through: − Population growth rate, abundance and distribution of marine

mammals − Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season − Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season

Impacts on species and biotopes

The extraction of living species and by-catch has an overall impact on food webs and ecosystem functioning, with direct and indirect impacts on:

− Birds − Fish − Cephalopods − Mammals − Pelagic habitats − Benthic habitats

See Annex 2 for threatened species (in particular fish, birds and mammals) and biotopes impacted by the selective extraction and by-catch of species.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

− Fish & shellfish harvesting (professional and recreational) which results in catch of target and non-target species, including also mammals, birds and benthic invertebrates

− Hunting of fish (e.g. bait) and eggs collecting for non-food purposes,

22

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

No environmental targets have been agreed at the regional level. A pressure core indicator ‘Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gears’ with associated environmental target is under development.

HELCOM acquis Helsinki Convention − Article 15 Nature conservation and biodiversity

Baltic Sea Action Plan biodiversity segment e.g. − by 2015 by-catch of harbour porpoise, seals, water birds and non-

target fish species has been significantly reduced with the aim to reach by-catch rates close to zero

− to increase knowledge on and protection of Baltic Sea marine habitats, communities and species by 2010 by further developing in co-operation with the 1991 Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) a coordinated reporting system and database on Baltic harbour porpoise sightings, by-catches and strandings

− to increase knowledge on and protection of Baltic Sea marine habitats, communities and species by the development and implementation of effective monitoring and reporting systems for by-caught birds and mammals

− adoption of measures to minimise by-catch of undersized fish and non-target species by 2012

− an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing technical measures, by 2008, to minimise by-catch of harbour porpoises, and to introduce adequate new technologies and measures.

HELCOM Ministerial Declaration (2013), e.g.: − protect the ringed seal in the Gulf of Finland, … immediate action is

needed to significantly reduce by-catch and to improve the understanding of the other direct threats on the seals…

− take decisive action to work towards a favourable conservation status of the harbor porpoise…in particular by addressing the pressing problem of by-catch.

HELCOM Recommendations − 27–28-2, Conservation of Seals in the Baltic Sea Area, specifically:

para 6) “to develop and to apply where possible non-lethal mitigation measures for seals to reduce bycatch and damage to fishing gear, as well as to support and coordinate the development of efficient mitigation measures”.

− 17-2, Protection of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Sea area, specifically: para a) “give highest priority to avoiding by-catches of harbour porpoises, particularly following the recommendations of ASCOBANS and the ASCOBANS Jastarnia Plan, in order to achieve the ecological objective of the Baltic Sea Action Plan: “By 2015 by-catch of harbour porpoise, seals, water birds and non-target fish species has been significantly reduced with the aim to reach by-catch rates close to zero.

Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

Convention on Biological Diversity, Target 6: By 2020 …. fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.

23

EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020, Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources, Action 14: Eliminate adverse impacts on fish stocks, species, habitats and ecosystems Habitats Directive (Article 12), EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), ASCOBANS (Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North-East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas under the auspices of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention).

Further actions to be considered

4.7.1 Adjustment or utilization of EU data collection framework to retrieve data for assessments and the development of management measures related to by-catch of species

4.7.2 Testing alternative fishing gears/fishing techniques to minimize incidental catch through joint project/projects

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

For by-catch: Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gears, supplemented by relevant status core indicators (population size). For target catch: fishing mortality and fishing effort, supplemented by relevant status indicators (stock size).

4.8 Introduction of non-indigenous species

State or impact HELCOM assesses the status of the environment as regards non-indigenous species through the status core indicator:

− Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species Impacts on species and biotopes

The introduction of non-indigenous species has direct and indirect impacts on:

− Birds − Fish − Cephalopods − Mammals − Pelagic habitats − Benthic habitats

See Annex 2 for threatened species (in particular birds and fish) and biotopes impacted by the introduction of non-indigenous species.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

− Inland water ways: natural dispersal and hull fouling/ballast − Marine shipping: ballast water, hull fouling − Aquaculture

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

Baltic Sea Action Plan ecological objective: − No introductions of alien species from ships.

HELCOM acquis Helsinki Convention − Article 15 Nature conservation and biodiversity − Article 8 Prevention of pollution from ships

Other HELCOM Measures − Joint harmonised procedure for the Contracting Parties of OSPAR

and HELCOM on the granting of exemptions under International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, Regulation A-4 (Adopted as part of the 2013 HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting, amended by HELCOM and OSPAR in 2015

24

− Commitment to ratify the 2004 International Convention for Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments by all coastal countries (adopted as part of the 2007 HELCOM BSAP, currently ratified by Denmark, Germany, Russian Federation and Sweden)

− Road map towards harmonised implementation and ratification of the 2004 International Convention for Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (adopted as part of the 2007 HELCOM BSAP)

Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

The 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (not yet in force). Convention of Biological Diversity, Target 9: ‘By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.’ EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020, Target 5: By 2020, Invasive Alien Species and their pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and pathways are managed to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS.

Further actions to be considered

4.8.1 Regional monitoring programme on non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea

4.9 Inputs of litter

State or impact Marine litter poses a growing threat to the marine and coastal environment. Most marine litter (in average three quarters on beaches) consists of plastics that degrade slowly, if at all. This means that a continuous input of large quantities of items made from different plastics results in a gradual build-up in the marine and coastal environment. Marine animals may be harmed by marine litter/debris when they get entangled and/or ingest marine litter. Plastic litter is visible on the sea surface as it accumulates, but it is also found in the water column and at the bottom of the ocean. Additives and persistent pollutants contained in plastic litter may potentially enter the food chain when being eaten by marine organisms and seabirds. Other frequently observed impacts are the damage of sensitive habitats, the smothering of benthic habitats and the transport of non-endemic species on litter items into new habitats. Because marine litter comes from sea-based and land-based sources, reduction, prevention and removal measures need to be implemented across a wide range of geographic locations and societal sectors.

Status can be assessed through the proposed indicators under development in the HELCOM area:

− pre-core indicator ‘Beach litter’ − candidate indicator ‘Microlitter in the water column’ candidate

indicator ‘Litter on the seafloor’.

Impacts on species and biotopes

− Birds − Mammals − Fish

25

− Benthic habitats and associated symbiotic communities

See Annex 2 for threatened species (in particular birds) and biotopes impacted by marine litter.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

Land-based activities − general littering and littering caused by tourism, recreational

activities and events, industrial facilities and construction; micro litter from waste water treatment plants, micro fibres from road traffic, municipal solid waste (e.g. sanitary waste introduced via rivers or floodwaters and waste from dumpsites on the coast and riverbanks)

Sea-based activities − shipping (recreational and commercial): solid waste − fishing: abandoned/lost fishing gear − illegal dumping − offshore platforms

HELCOM environmental targets(s) and distance from target

2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration: − Decide to develop a regional action plan by 2015 at the latest with

the aim of achieving a significant quantitative reduction of marine litter by 2025, compared to 2015.

HELCOM acquis

Helsinki Convention − Article 8 and 9 on requirements for the provision of port reception

facilities − Regulation 6 of Annex IV on mandatory discharge of all waste to a

port reception facility HELCOM Ministerial Declaration (2013), e.g:

− carry out concrete measures for prevention and reduction of marine litter from its main sources with the aim of achieving significant quantitative reductions focusing inter alia on working with industry to reduce or phase out microbeads in certain products in the market

− develop and test technology for removal of microplastics and nanoparticles in municipal waste water treatment plants by 2020 and inter alia work with industry to ban the use of microplastics and on the assessment of the use of nanoparticles within the production process (e.g. in cosmetics)

− utilize existing networks to address marine litter issues − develop common indicators and associated targets related to

quantities, composition, sources and pathway of marine litter, including riverine inputs, in order to gain information on long-term trends, …

− identify the socio-economic and biological impacts of marine litter, also in terms of toxicity of litter

− review regularly the effectiveness of the measures, for the first time by 2020

HELCOM Recommendations − 36-1, Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter (RAP ML) − 29-2, Marine litter within the Baltic Sea region (guidelines on

sampling and reporting of marine litter found on beaches) − Set of HELCOM Recommendations on uniform requirements for

port reception facilities and delivery of ship-generated waste

26

− agreed HELCOM actions to reduce litter input in the Baltic Sea environment, especially via Recommendations 10/5 concerning guidelines for the establishment of adequate reception facilities in ports (1989); 10/7 concerning general requirements for reception of wastes (1989); 19/14 concerning a harmonized system of fines in case a ship violates anti-pollution regulations (1998); 19/9 (supplemented by 22/1) concerning the installation of garbage retention appliances and toilet retention systems and standard connections for sewage on board fishing vessels, working vessels and pleasure craft (1998) and 31E/4 concerning proper handling of waste/landfilling (2010)

Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

- the Rio +20 commitment to take action to achieve significant reductions in marine debris by 2025 ; Honolulu Strategy (UN GA Resolution A/RES/66/288 (2012));

- the London Convention 1972 and the 1996 Protocol; - UNEPs Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine

Environment from Land-Based Sources (GPA); UNEP Regional Seas Program (RSP)

- MARPOL Annex V; - EU legislation, including Waste Framework Directive, the Packaging

and Packaging Waste Directive, the Port Reception Facilities Directive, the Landfill Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the Ecodesign Directive;

- related regulation of the Russian Federation: the Federal law on wastes of production and consumption; Water code of the Russian Federation; The law on internal waters, territorial sea and contiguous zone of the Russian Federation; The law on environmental protection of the Russian Federation and subordinated legal acts.

Further actions to be considered

4.9.1 Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter (coordinated implementation)

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

The same indicators as listed under State or Impact.

4.10 Inputs of energy including underwater noise

State or impact Descriptor 11 covers different forms of energy. Among those, underwater noise exerts pressures at a large scale. Observations indicate that both impulsive noise (e.g. from pile driving) and continuous underwater noise (mainly from shipping) is increasing. Underwater noise can have adverse impacts on marine species, in particular marine mammals and fish. Impulsive noise can result in physical damage or even lethal impact on marine organisms. Continuous noise has the potential to mask biologically important signals or scare and displace marine organisms.

To date information is limited to assess the extent and volume of underwater noise and of the problem it poses.

A register is needed for impulsive sound, and observations are needed to identify trends for continuous noise. HELCOM indicators for noise are

27

under development: ‘Distribution in time and place of loud low and mid frequency anthropogenic impulsive sounds’ (candidate indicator) and ‘Continuous low frequency anthropogenic sound’ (pre-core indicator).

Impacts on species and biotopes

There are studies indicating that noise may have adverse impacts on marine life, such as porpoise and fish (cod). However, the complexity of the topic makes a species-by-species assessment unfeasible at present.

Activities or sectors causing the pressure

The following activities associated with Descriptor 11 take place in the Baltic Sea:

− shipping − piling (for example for wind farm construction) − underwater explosions (used by Navies for practicing or clearing

unexploded ammunition, and by commercial actors for, e.g. construction)

− sonars (used for studies/measurements, by Navies and Commercial actors)

− air guns (prospecting for oil and gas) Relevant global, EU and Russian measures

− Guidelines for the Reduction of Underwater Noise from Commercial Shipping to Address Adverse Impacts on Marine Life (MEPC.1/Circ.833)

− Convention on Biological Diversity: Impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity of anthropogenic underwater noise and ocean acidification, priority actions to achieve Aichi Biodiversity Target 10 for coral reefs and closely associated ecosystems, and marine spatial planning and training initiatives

− ACCOBAMS Resolution 4.17 on Guidelines to address the impact of anthropogenic noise on Cetaceans in the ACCOBAMS area.

HELCOM environmental target(s) and distance from target

No environmental targets have been agreed at the regional level.

Contributing HELCOM acquis

2013 HELCOM Ministerial Declaration, e.g.: − as soon as possible and by the end of 2016, using mainly already

on-going activities, to: • establish a set of indicators including technical standards

which may be used for monitoring ambient and impulsive underwater noise in the Baltic Sea;

• encourage research on the cause and effects of underwater noise on biota;

• map the levels of ambient underwater noise across the Baltic Sea;

• set up a register of the occurrence of impulsive sounds; − consider regular monitoring on ambient and impulsive

underwater noise as well as possible options for mitigation measures related to noise, taking into account the ongoing work in IMO on non-mandatory draft guidelines for reducing underwater noise from commercial ships and in CBD context

Contributing global, EU and Russian measures

No information available

Further actions to be considered

4.10.1 Regional Baltic Underwater Noise Roadmap (2015-2017)

28

Indicators for follow-up of the pressure

There are no indicators at present.

29

5. Summary conclusions and next steps HELCOM Contracting Parties look back to a long standing cooperation on the management of human activities exerting pressures on the marine ecosystems of the Baltic Sea. The intensified regional coordination of Contracting Parties, especially over the past two years, has led to the specification of work required to follow up commitments within HELCOM and has triggered a number of new or specified initiatives which may support Contracting Parties in their national actions to achieve good status of the Baltic Sea ecosystem. This is illustrated for example by the adoption by HELCOM in 2015 of the Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter or adoption at HELCOM 37-2016 of Recommendation 37/3 ‘Sustainable aquaculture in the Baltic sea region’. Those activities provide a framework for coordinated regional and national management actions and reference point for national programmes of measures for those topics. Annex 3 of this Joint documentation lists further actions for consideration, which complement other ongoing HELCOM activities to achieve regional targets. Those actions relate to the transboundary coordination of the management of nutrient pollution, micropollutants in effluents, risks of ship accidents, marine protected areas and their lines with maritime spatial planning, conservation of species, interference with seafloor integrity, by-catch in fisheries, introduction of non-indigenous species, marine litter and underwater noise. Contracting Parties’ programmes of measures give particular emphasis to measures relating to the reduction of inputs of nutrients, contaminants and litter as well as on the protection of marine habitats and species. Many of the Contracting Parties’ planned measures link with existing or ongoing cooperations in HELCOM and therefore benefit from regional coordination, thereby emphasising the need for continued cooperation on HELCOM work strands. The current development of improved HELCOM tools to follow-up on the implementation of HELCOM actions and measures will provide an important contribution to showing the efforts of Contracting Parties and their progress towards the HELCOM management and environmental quality objectives. Work on the specification and quantification of environmental targets for the management of pressures and quality objectives for marine ecosystem components through the HELCOM core indicators has started. Progress on this work is vital for assessing distance to good environmental status and for informing an effective future management of human activities in the Baltic Sea region.

30

Abbreviations BSAP Baltic Sea Action Plan

CART Country-wise Allocated Reduction Targets

CIS EU Common Implementation Strategy (here for the MSFD)

D Descriptor for good environmental status in the meaning of Annex I MSFD

DPSIR Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response

EU European Union

GEAR HELCOM Group for the implementation of the ecosystem approach

HELCOM Helsinki Commission

IMO International Maritime Organisation

MAI Maximum Allowable Input

MPA Marine Protected Area

MSFD EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EU)

RSC Regional Sea Convention

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

31

Glossary For the specific purposes of this document, the following terms mean:

‘Programme of measures’: “A set of measures that the Member State is responsible for implementing, put into context with each other, referring to the environmental targets they address”.13

’Coordination‘: A managerial process to ensure that the programmes of measures required to achieve or maintain good environmental status by 2020 are coherent across the marine region or subregion concerned. Programmes of measures under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive need to recognise the different geographic scales and competences of management involved. Accordingly, they need to identify the appropriate action level in relation to the environmental problem concerned. The action levels are broadly the national, European Union, regional and international (multilateral, global) level. The action level determines the specific need for coordination.

The role of Regional Sea Conventions in relation to coordination embraces14:

− ‘Coordination of national measures’: Exchange of information and alignment of measures that are primarily of national concern and responsibility.

− ‘Joint regional measures’: The development of measures at regional level (e.g. HELCOM Recommendations) with a focus on transboundary issues.

− ‘Concerted regional action in relation to third parties’: The development of joint proposals for measures that are required to achieve GES but are in the competence of the EU, international authorities (e.g. IMO, River Commissions) or third countries outside the EU and Regional Sea Conventions’ cooperation (e.g. upstream-countries), and agreement of concerted actions of the Contracting Parties to approach those bodies/authorities through HELCOM.

A focus of cooperation should be on measures of a transboundary nature, targeting ecosystems and/or pressures that transcend the national scale (e.g. management of marine protected areas; gas/oil exploitation in open seas; chemical contamination and nutrient enrichment, in particular through long-distance transport; seafloor protection, litter, underwater noise).

‘Coordinated programmes of measures‘: The result of the above listed coordination activities. The term refers to national programmes of measures for achieving and maintaining good environmental status by 2020 in the Baltic Sea region.

‘Measure‘: “Any action on a national, European or international level with a view to achieving or maintaining GES and with reference to the environmental targets.” Measures relate to legislative, economic, technical and policy-driven actions. 15

‘Regional action plan‘: A regionally agreed approach to the management of selected (transboundary) themes which may cover commitments on:

13 EU MSFD CIS guidance “Recommendation on Programmes of Measures” https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/36284090-d09b-4fb5-822d-9986a22d7920/MD-2014-1-1%20Annex%20Item%202.1%20PoM%20-%20final.pdf 14 EU MSFD CIS guidance “Recommendation on Programmes of Measures” https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/36284090-d09b-4fb5-822d-9986a22d7920/MD-2014-1-1%20Annex%20Item%202.1%20PoM%20-%20final.pdf 15 EU MSFD CIS guidance “Recommendation on Programmes of Measures” https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/36284090-d09b-4fb5-822d-9986a22d7920/MD-2014-1-1%20Annex%20Item%202.1%20PoM%20-%20final.pdf

32

− measures at all action levels (national, EU, regional, international) − streamlining and/or enhancement of existing measures − actions in preparation of measures

33

Annex 1 Overview of planned measures under consideration in HELCOM Contracting Parties

The following table is based on the information from Contracting Parties on the state of play of their planned measures by 28 February 2016. The table provides a general overview of the measure topics per theme (sections 4.1-4.10) for which Contracting Parties are currently planning to propose new measures in their national programmes of measures, noting that some Contracting Parties have not yet finalised their programmes of measures and that changes to proposed planned measures may still occur. The crosses in the table only relate to the national measures which are considered new by Contracting Parties; other Contracting Parties may consider the action as an existing measure which they may have already fully implemented or are still in the process of implementing. Contracting Parties’ approaches to considering a measure as new or existing in the context of the MSFD differ. This needs to be taken into account in the EU context when assessing regional coherence of national programmes of measures. The commentary column provides insight into ongoing coordination processes in HELCOM, encompassing all HELCOM Contracting Parties, and further actions for consideration.

Note that national measures may include various components that relate to more than one theme (sections 4.1-4.10) or measure topic. One measure may therefore have been indicated more than once in the table. In addition to the information recorded in the table below, the following information was provided:

- Finland reported to plan a general measure cutting across the themes on the development of relevant communication material and activities related to the implementation of the Finnish marine strategy.

- Latvia and Lithuania reported on the development of maritime spatial planning (MSP) in their waters.

- Sweden reported that national MSP work is described to need to pay special attention to aspects of importance to reach MSFD GES, and guidance is proposed for coastal/marine spatial planning taking into account MSFD GES.

Russia provided information that they will not be able to provide any input at this time.

34

Overview of planned new measures under consideration in HELCOM Contracting Parties16

Section 4.1 Inputs of nutrients and organic matter

Planned new measures in relation to

DE DK17 EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment

Nitrogen emission control area (NECA)

X X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. HELCOM 37-2016 agreed on a synchronized submission by HELCOM and by North Sea countries for Baltic Sea and North Sea NECAs to IMO. It is expected that 6930 tons of nitrogen can be reduced over thirty years following a NECA designation. Reference: 2007 and 2010 HELCOM Ministerial Meetings

Alternative ship fuel (e.g. Liquified Natural Gas, LNG)

X X X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. A ”Green Technology and Alternative Fuels Platform for Shipping” was launched in 2014 to enhance cooperation between public and private stakeholders and catalyse further regional work. Alternative fuels such as LNG are expected to reduce exhaust gas emissions (NOx, particulate matter, SOx) substantially. Reference: 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting.

Sewage from passenger ships X X In July 2011 and upon the coordinated proposal by the HELCOM countries, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) designated the Baltic Sea as a special area for sewage from passenger ships. The decision entered into force on 1 January 2013. Originally the special area status, referring to amendments in IMO MARPOL Annex IV, was planned to take effect on 1 January 2016 for new ships and 1 January 2018 for old, at the earliest. However, the dates have since - as of IMO meeting in April 2015 - been postponed to 2019 and 2021, respectively.

16 When interpreting this table it is worth noting that there is also a difference in what countries have considered classifies as a measure; for example in commissions guidance for PoM it is stated that Activities to fill gaps for other parts of the Directive (eg. Art 8, 9, 10, 11) are by definition not measures. 17 Denmark has participated in the HELCOM work on regional coordination, but as the Danish draft PoM per march 2016 is pending political decision it has been necessary to remove the draft Danish measures in the final version of this document.

35

The effective application of this already existing legal status has been, according to the 2011 IMO decision, subject to the availability of adequate sewage Port Reception Facilities (PRF) in the region. This availability of adequate sewage PRF has to be separately notified to IMO MEPC by the Baltic Sea coastal countries. Interim guidance on technical and operational aspects of sewage delivery to port reception facilities has been prepared by HELCOM. Reference: 2007 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting

Internal loads / endogenous X X Further actions to be considered Sedimentation X Local measure. Aquaculture X X X X HELCOM coordination has started. HELCOM 37-2016 adopted

Recommendation 37/3 ‘Sustainable aquaculture in the Baltic sea region’. It is envisaged to develop guidelines on best available techniques and best environmental practices. The development of guidelines has the potential to help coordination of planned national measures on aquaculture.

Wastewater treatment plants X Most Contracting Parties rely on measures under the Water Framework Directive and the Nitrates Directive. Initiated HELCOM cooperation on nutrient recycling in agriculture, including on standards for nutrient content in manure and nutrient accounting on farm level.

Stormwater X Agriculture and agricultural land X X

Recovery of riverine habitats X Local measure. Monitoring X X Research X X

Section 4.2 Inputs of synthetic and non-synthetic contaminants and systematic and/or intentional releases of substances

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Environmentally friendly ships X HELCOM coordination is ongoing in relation to individual aspects of

environmentally friendly ships (e.g. green technologies, alternative fuels, the “no-special fee” system, economic incentives to green shipping). Currently there is no cooperation on ship eco-labels.

Ship emissions (engines/fuel) X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. Cooperation by Contracting Parties to enforce the Baltic Sea SECA and more stringent limits for SOx

36

emissions, including consideration of joint measures. Implementation of SECA is a strong catalyst for mainstreaming innovative green technologies and alternative fuels. Reference: 2013 Ministerial Declaration

Scrubbing waters X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. MARITIME recently started to look into scrubbing technology and associated legislation (i.a. national practices regarding releases of scrubber water). There is information exchange and cooperation with the European Sustainable Shipping Forum, involving Contracting Parties, EU authorities, the shipping industry and environmental NGOs. Reference: 2013 Ministerial Declaration on SOx emission limits

Harbour bunkering X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME. Cooperation by Contracting Parties in the context of HELCOM recommendations and guidelines on bunkering activities and harbor bunkering.

Paraffins and derivates X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME Carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea (IMO)

X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME

Ballast water management (IMO) X Ongoing HELCOM coordination of harmonized implementation of BWMC, including Joint harmonized procedures for the Contracting Parties of OSPAR and HELCOM on the granting of exemptions under the BWMC.

Pharmaceuticals X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. Information and data exchange on pharmaceuticals of concern for the marine environment and their sources and pathways is the basis of a status report on pharmaceuticals under preparation. This provides a basis for consideration of any possible further actions. Reference: 2010 and 2013 Ministerial Meetings

Waste water effluents X Further actions to be considered Polluted sediments X X Local measure. Dumped munitions X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME Shipwrecks X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME

37

Public information and awareness raising

X

Monitoring X Assessment and screening X X X

Section 4.3 Accidental pollution from maritime activities

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Pollution prevention, emergency preparedness and response (e.g. oil spills)

X X X X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. Comprehensive cooperation exists, based on the Helsinki Convention, HELCOM Response Manual and related Recommendation, and additional initiatives are under way to enhance cooperation and capacity building. Further actions to be considered

Enforcement X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME Liability X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME Safety of ship traffic X Ongoing HELCOM coordination covered under MARITIME Aerial surveillance X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. Cooperation on aerial surveillance

provides regular information in HELCOM on illegal discharges of oils and other harmful substances.

Monitoring and assessment X

Section 4.4 Spatial protection measures

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment New MPAs X X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. Designation of new MPAs with the

view improving the coherence of the MPA network can be supported by site-selection analyses and has been agreed to carry out in HELCOM, Rec 35-1.

Expanding / adjusting existing MPAs

Management of MPAs X X X Further actions to be considered Effectiveness of MPAs X X Further actions to be considered Mapping/monitoring of habitats/biotopes in MPAs

X

38

MPAs and Maritime Spatial Planning

X X Further actions to be considered

Section 4.5 Conservation, restoration and/or reintroduction of species and biotopes/habitats

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Planned national measures overlap with theme 4.4 and cover spatial protection measures and effective management of MPAs.

Fisheries related measures X X X Regulation of human activities other than fisheries

X X X Further actions to be considered

Management/conservation plans for species/biotopes (e.g. ringed seal)

X X Further actions to be considered

Monitoring of ecosystem components

X Coordination through joint HELCOM monitoring guidelines

Restoration activities X Enhancing knowledge on species/biotopes

X X

Information campaigns on protection/restrictions

Section 4.6 Physical loss and damage of seabed habitats

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Environmental impact assessments X Dredging and dredged material X X X Cooperation in HELCOM ongoing.

Regulation of dumping of dredged material is addressed in the Helsinki Convention (G Paragraph 2 of Art. 11). Dumping of dredged material containing harmful substances is only permitted according to HELCOM Guidelines.

Extraction of non-biological resources

X X

Hydromorphological inferences X X Ship wrecks X

39

Monitoring / indexing / mapping / research

X X X X Further actions to be considered Ongoing HELCOM coordination. The national activities may be part of planned measures in relation to dredging, extraction of non-biological resources, hydromorphological interference and ship wrecks. Enhancing knowledge relates e.g. to the identification of damaged areas and remediation.

Section 4.7 Selective extraction of species including incidental non-target catches

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Coastal fisheries X X HELCOM coordination initiated.

Looking into options for possible common methodologies of recreational fisheries monitoring that could be developed based on a scientific approach and analytical tools, as well as exchange of information on the regulation practices for recreational fisheries.

EU regulated fisheries X Use of fish resources X Recovery / conservation plans for commercial fish species

X

Public awareness X Monitoring/data collection by-catch

X X Further actions to be considered

Section 4.8 Introduction of non-indigenous species

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Aquaculture Ongoing HELCOM coordination. HELCOM 37-2016 adopted

Recommendation 37/3 ‘Sustainable aquaculture in the Baltic sea region’. It is envisaged to develop guidelines on best available techniques and best environmental practices. The development of the guidelines has the potential to help coordination of planned national measures on aquaculture.

Ballast water management (IMO) X X X Ongoing HELCOM coordination of harmonized implementation of BWMC, including Joint harmonized procedures for the Contracting

40

Parties of OSPAR and HELCOM on the granting of exemptions under the BWMC.

Biofouling management (incl. IMO) X X Warning and response systems X Communication and information X X Monitoring and data access X X HELCOM coordination started. Development of coordinated monitoring

for HELCOM indicators relating to non-indigenous species. Further actions to be considered

Research and knowledge building X X

Section 4.9 Inputs of litter

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Primary microplastic X HELCOM coordination has started. In 2015, HELCOM adopted the

Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter with common regional and optional national actions to address inputs of litter to the sea. Contracting Parties’ planned measures relate to the two components of the Regional Action Plan. Coordination of the implementation of measures under the Regional Action Plans has started. Some of the actions build on coordinated initiatives which have already been started in HELCOM (e.g. the “no-special fee” system for waste reception in ports, beach litter collection projects, fishing-for-litter projects, implementation of shipping waste regulations). Further actions to be considered

Secondary microplastic X Products (modification, substitution)

X

Fishing gear X X X X X Plastic litter (packaging, bags) X X X Beach litter collection X X X X Fishing for litter X Local community actions X X Waste reception in ports (no special fee system)

X X X

Deposit systems X Shipping waste regulations X Management of waste streams X X Target setting X Education X X X Communication and information X X X X X Monitoring X X X

Research and studies X X X

41

Section 4.10 Inputs of energy including underwater noise

Planned new measures relating to DE DK EE FI LV LT PL SE Comment Further actions to be considered Planned national measures are partly taken up in the Regional Baltic Underwater Noise Roadmap 2015-2017 which goal is to make every effort to prepare a knowledge base towards a regional action plan on underwater noise in 2017/2018

Management structures Local measure. Underwater noise register X X X X HELCOM coordination has started through the HELCOM roadmap on

underwater noise and an initiative for a joint OSPAR/HELCOM regional registry of impulsive noise.

Underwater noise mapping X Ongoing HELCOM coordination. HELCOM has started mapping underwater noise through the BIAS project. The project results are expected to provide a basis for building further knowledge and management capacity.

Seismic investigations, guidelines, technologies

Actions to reduce impulsive noise (pile driving, construction activities)

X X X

Reducing underwater noise from ships (promoting IMO action)

X X HELCOM coordination has started through the HELCOM roadmap on underwater noise.

Underwater noise mitigation and reduction

X X HELCOM coordination has started through an initiative in the HELCOM roadmap on underwater noise to assess the applicability of certain measures.

Impacts of underwater noise X HELCOM coordination has started through the HELCOM roadmap on underwater noise and an initiative to explore possibilities for determining certain biologically acceptable levels of noise and associated biological limit values.

Lighting of offshore installations X Introduction of heat X Communication and information X

42

Monitoring X Assessment tools X Research X HELCOM coordination has started through the HELCOM roadmap on

underwater noise and an initiative to compile certain knowledge elements.

43

Annex 2 Draft proposal for table on threatened species and biotopes Impact assessment based on BSEP 138 Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes and BSEP 140 HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. *Inputs of energy were not assessed.

Legend: Category of state: CO – collapsed, CR – critically endangered, EN – Endangered, VU – Vulnerable

Threatened species

Covered by HELCOM

measures on Impacted by

Scientific name Threat

category Common name Cons

erva

tion,

rest

orat

ion

and

rein

trod

uctio

n of

sp

ecie

s

Spat

ial P

rote

ctio

n

Inpu

ts o

f nu

trie

nts a

nd

orga

nic

mat

ter

Inpu

ts o

f non

-/sy

nthe

tic

cont

amin

ants

; sy

stem

atic

in

tent

iona

l rel

ease

s

Acci

dent

al p

ollu

tion

from

m

ariti

me

activ

ities

Ph

ysic

al lo

ss a

nd d

amag

e of

se

abed

hab

itats

Intr

oduc

tion

of n

on-

indi

geno

us sp

ecie

s

Sele

ctiv

e ex

trac

tion

of

spec

ies i

nclu

ding

inci

dent

al

non-

targ

et c

atch

Inpu

ts o

f litt

er

Inpu

ts o

f ene

rgy*

SPECIES

Bree

ding

Bird

s

Larus fuscus fuscus VU Lesser black-backed

gull X X X

Aythya marila VU Greater scaup X X X

Gelochelidon nilotica RE Gull-billed tern X

Charadrius alexandrinus CR Kentish plover X

Calidris alpine schinzii EN Southern dunlin X X

Larus melanocephalus EN Mediterranean gull X

44

Threatened species

Covered by HELCOM

measures on Impacted by

Scientific name Threat

category Common name Cons

erva

tion,

rest

orat

ion

and

rein

trod

uctio

n of

sp

ecie

s

Spat

ial P

rote

ctio

n

Inpu

ts o

f nu

trie

nts a

nd

orga

nic

mat

ter

Inpu

ts o

f non

-/sy

nthe

tic

cont

amin

ants

; sy

stem

atic

in

tent

iona

l rel

ease

s

Acci

dent

al p

ollu

tion

from

m

ariti

me

activ

ities

Ph

ysic

al lo

ss a

nd d

amag

e of

se

abed

hab

itats

Intr

oduc

tion

of n

on-

indi

geno

us sp

ecie

s

Sele

ctiv

e ex

trac

tion

of

spec

ies i

nclu

ding

inci

dent

al

non-

targ

et c

atch

Inpu

ts o

f litt

er

Inpu

ts o

f ene

rgy*

Arenaria interpres VU Ruddy turnstone X X

Hydroprogne caspia VU Caspian tern X

Philomachus pugnax VU Ruff X X

Xenus cinereus EN Terek sandpiper X

Podiceps auritus VU Slavonian grebe X X X

Melanitta fusca VU Velvet scoter X X

Rissa tridactyla VU Black-legged kittiwake both

X X X X

45

Win

terin

g bi

rds

Gavia arctica CR Black-throated diver X X X

Gavia stellata CR Red-throated diver X X X

Anser fabalis fabalis EN Taiga Bean Goose X X X

Clangula hyemalis EN Long-tailed duck X X X

Melanitta fusca EN Velvet scoter X X X

Melanitta nigra EN Common scoter X X X

Podiceps grisegena EN Red-necked grebe

(wintering) X X X

Polysticta stelleri EN Steller´s Eider (w) X X X

Rissa tridactyla VU wintering Black-legged kittiwake X X X X

Somateria mollissima EN Common eider X X X

Cepphus grylle arcticus VU Black guillemot X X X

Mergus serrator VU Red-breasted

merganser (wintering) X X X X

Mam

mal

s

Phocoena phocoena CR Harbour porpoise X X

Phoca hispida bothnica VU Baltic ringed seal X X

Phoca vitulina (Kalmarsund population)

VU Harbour seal/Common seal

X X

46

Fish

and

lam

prey

spec

ies

Acipenser oxyrinchus RE X X

Dipturus batis RE X

Gadus morhua VU X

Anguilla anguilla CR X X

Lamna nasus CR X

Thymallus thymallus CR X X X X X

Squalus acanthias CR X

Anarchichas lupus EN X

Coregonus maraena EN X

Molva molva EN X

Galeorhinus galeus VU X

Raja clavata VU X

Salmo salar VU X

Salmo trutta VU X

Merlangius merlangus VU X

Petromyzon marinus VU X X

47

Mac

roph

ytes

Hippuris tetraphylla EN X X X

Lamprothamnium papulosum EN X X X

Persicaria foliosa EN X X X

Alisma wahlenbergii VU X X X

Chara braunii VU X X

Nitella hyalina VU X X X

Zostera noltii VU X X X

Bent

hic

inve

rteb

rate

s

Abra prismatica VU X X X X

Atelecyclus rotundatus VU X X

Clelandella miliaris VU X

Cliona celata VU X X X

Deshayesorchestia deshayesii VU X X

Epitonium clathrus VU X X X

Haploops tubicola VU

Hippasteria phyrigiana VU X X

Hippolyte varians VU X

Lunatida pallida VU X X

Macoma calcarea VU X

Modiolus modiolus VU X X X X

48

Nucula nucleus

Parvicardium hauniense VU X X X

Pelonaia corrugata VU X X X

Scrobicularia plana VU

Stomphia coccinea VU

Solaster endeca VU X X

Threatened biotopes

Covered by HELCOM

measures on Impacted by

Biotope code Biotope name Threat

category Cons

erva

tion,

rest

orat

ion

and

rein

trod

uctio

n of

spec

ies

Spat

ial P

rote

ctio

n

Inpu

ts o

f nu

trie

nts a

nd o

rgan

ic m

atte

r

Inpu

ts o

f non

-/sy

nthe

tic c

onta

min

ants

; sy

stem

atic

inte

ntio

nal r

elea

ses

Acci

dent

al p

ollu

tion

from

mar

itim

e ac

tiviti

es

Phys

ical

loss

and

dam

age

of se

abed

ha

bita

ts

Intr

oduc

tion

of n

on-in

dige

nous

spec

ies

Sele

ctiv

e ex

trac

tion

of sp

ecie

s inc

ludi

ng

inci

dent

al n

on-t

arge

t cat

ch

Inpu

ts o

f litt

er

Inpu

ts o

f ene

rgy*

BIOTOPES

Balti

c

AA.M1Q2 Baltic photic mixed substrate dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)

EN

X X

49

AA.H1Q2 Baltic photic mud dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)

EN

X X

AA.I1Q2 Baltic photic coarse sediment dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)

EN

X X

AA.J1Q2 Baltic photic sand dominated by stable aggregations of unattached Fucus spp. (dwarf form)

EN

X X

AA.D Baltic photic maerl beds (unattached particles of coralline red algae) EN X X

AA.G Baltic photic peat bottom VU X X X

AA.E1F1 Baltic photic shell gravel dominated by vase tunicate (Ciona intestinalis) VU X X X X

Balti

c ap

hotic

ben

thos

AB.D Baltic aphotic maerl beds (unattached particles of coralline red algae)

EN

X X

AB.E1F1 Baltic aphotic shell gravel dominated by vase tunicate (Ciona intestinalis) VU X X X X

AB.H3L3 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica)

CR

X

AB.B1E4 Baltic aphotic hard clay dominated by Astarte spp. EN X

AB.H3L5 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Astarte spp. EN X

AB.H2T1 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment characterized by sea-pens EN X X

AB.H1I2 Baltic aphotic muddy sediment dominated by Haploops spp. EN X X X

AB.J3L3 Baltic aphotic sand dominated by ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) VU X X

50

Balti

c Se

a se

ason

al ic

e

AC Baltic Sea seasonal ice VU

Ba

ltic

Sea

apho

tic p

elag

ic

AE.O5 Baltic Sea aphotic pelagic below halocline oxic EN X X

51

Threatened biotope complexes Covered by HELCOM measures on Impacted by

Biotope complex code Biotope complex name Threat category Co

nser

vatio

n, re

stor

atio

n an

d re

intr

oduc

tion

of sp

ecie

s

Spat

ial P

rote

ctio

n

Inpu

ts o

f nu

trie

nts a

nd o

rgan

ic m

atte

r

Inpu

ts o

f non

-/sy

nthe

tic c

onta

min

ants

; sy

stem

atic

inte

ntio

nal r

elea

ses

Acci

dent

al p

ollu

tion

from

mar

itim

e ac

tiviti

es

Phys

ical

loss

and

dam

age

of se

abed

ha

bita

ts

Intr

oduc

tion

of n

on-in

dige

nous

spec

ies

Sele

ctiv

e ex

trac

tion

of sp

ecie

s inc

ludi

ng

inci

dent

al n

on-t

arge

t cat

ch

Inpu

ts o

f litt

er

Inpu

ts o

f ene

rgy*

BIOTOPE COMPLEXES

1130 Estuaries CR X X X X X

1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gases EN X X X X

1150 Coastal lagoons EN X X X X X

1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time VU X X X X

1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide VU X X X X

1160 Large shallow inlets and bays VU X X X X X

1170 Reefs VU X X X X

1650 Boreal Baltic narrow inlets VU X X

52

Annex 3 Further actions to be considered

HELCOM Contracting Parties and Working Groups used the following template to identify and propose further actions to be considered to reach the HELCOM target(s) and objectives. The “further actions to be considered” relate to the analysis of planned national measures (Annex 1 of this document) and to gaps identified in HELCOM work.

Name of action / measure Including a short title and numbering for quick referencing HELCOM type of action As proposed to GEAR 8 for the purpose of implementation

control of actions agreed in HELCOM* Type of coordination As defined in the Joint Document: (1) regional coordination

of national measure, (2) regional measure, (3) sub-regional measure, (4) joint regional action in relation to third parties.

Short description of the action / measure

Including its purpose and a description of the mechanism of how the action / measure improves the state of the environment.

Spatial coverage E.g. European, whole Baltic Sea, sub-basin(s). Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

Possibly including reference to available studies on effectiveness.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

E.g. technical requirements, milestones including reference to ongoing activities.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

E.g. relating to resources, lead country, policies

* Type of actions proposed to GEAR 8: a. Measures [directly aimed at reducing pressures or improving the state of the environment]

i. Reduction of pressures ii. Spatial protection iii. Restoration/Reintroductions of habitats and species iv. HELCOM Recommendations that require implementation through measures v. Joint actions with the aim of influencing international regulations

b. Management coordination [aimed at establishing joint HELCOM principles for management of the marine environment] i. HELCOM Recommendations not included under Measures ii. Plans, guidelines and manuals iii. Assessment tools iv. Classification systems, reporting systems v. Follow-up/assessments of agreed actions and plans

c. Monitoring and assessment [i.e. the implementation of] i. Monitoring and surveillance ii. Assessments

d. Data and information i. Data ii. Databases

e. Knowledge i. Promotion of research

ii. Reviews and evaluations iii. Development of supporting information [e.g. modelling]

53

4.1.1 Assess the role of [internal nutrient reserves] [accumulated nutrients] [stored nutrients] in the Baltic and potential management measures Short title: Management of [internal load / endogenous nutrient reserves] HELCOM type of action e. Knowledge

d. Data and information Type of coordination 2 - Regional measure Short description of the action / measure

Transport of nutrients to surface layers from both deep water and sediments accentuates and prolongs eutrophication in the central Baltic Sea and potentially also in some coastal waters. The scale and dynamics of the problem varies from small coastal basins suffering from hypoxia/anoxia to the main deeps of the Baltic Proper. Remedial measures are a potential complement to the external load reductions. It is timely to examine and evaluate these precautionary measures, because external loads as well as inputs of stored nutrients to the productive layer of the Baltic Sea are likely to further exacerbate due to climate change. The first step consists of a scientific workshop on the state of art regarding the nutrient dynamics and management in sediments with the aim of formulating questions that need to be answered and understood about the nature of stored nutrients, dynamics of their transport to the productive layer as well as potential measures to regulate these storages, including requirements for Environmental Impact Assessment. The second step is mapping significant nutrient stores/stocks and appropriate modelling to answer questions identified in the previous step, as well as to inform the general public and policy makers. The third step is:

• to identify different type of experimental sites and methods for prototype scale tests. Furthermore, to investigate the environmental, legal, technical and economic challenges that need to be taken into account for prototype scale tests and

• to suggest the design of appropriate standardized monitoring strategies for the respective types/methods.

Description of these challenges should form a basis for guidance documents to be used by environmental authorities when evaluating future applications to use in situ management methods.

Available experimental results from prototype scale tests need to be evaluated against the benchmarks identified in the third step to inform the further development of promising techniques. Both successful and failed remedial approaches will inform the technical guidance in the ‘cookbook -toolbox’.

Spatial coverage Whole Baltic Sea Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

2016-2019

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The initiative contributes to the reaching of good environmental status in regard eutrophication.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

HELCOM initiates an activity under PRESSURE group to accomplish the objectives set out in the description.

54

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

Lack of resources for implementation, including the involvement of scientists, environmental layers or engineers.

4.1.2 Intensifying HELCOM work to reduce airborne transboundary nitrogen input from outside of HELCOM area, in particular the Gothenburg Protocol HELCOM type of action a) v. Joint actions with the aim of influencing international regulations Type of coordination 4 - Joint regional action in relation to third parties Short description of the action / measure

Airborne nitrogen deposition originating from outside HELCOM area is a significant source of nitrogen input to the sea. This source is managed under the Convention on Long-Range of Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and more specifically its Gothenburg Protocol. Prompted by BSAP, HELCOM has previously informed bodies implementing the Protocol of eutrophication requesting action. This has not resulted in desirable action. In this initiative HELCOM will engage firstly in resolving the most effective ways of influencing the work under the Protocol. Most likely that will involve both national contacts as well as the formal bodies responsible for the Convention. In the second step appropriate action will be taken, using HELCOM material, such as eutrophication indicators, PLC- and LOAD input related assessments and indicators, as well as the MAI/CART related follow-up information as the basis. There is also a linkage to the NEC Directive in this work for those CPs that are also EU Member States.

Spatial coverage Whole Baltic Sea air basin Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

2016-2021

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The initiative has substantial potential to contribute to the reduction of input of nitrogen to the Baltic Sea and to improve eutrophication status.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

As a starting point, GEAR supported by PRESSURE and STATE & CONSERVATION could design the work in further detail and identify which bodies in HELCOM should assist in carrying out the work.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

No right communication channels will be opened and right people found and initiative stays idle.

55

Section 4.2 – Inputs of synthetic and non-synthetic contaminants and systematic and/or intentional releases of substances

4.2.1 Micropollutants in effluents from wastewater treatment plants HELCOM type of action d. i; Data

c. ii. Assessment e.

Type of coordination 2 - Regional measure Short description of the action / measure

Micropollutants despite low (ng/L to µg/L) concentrations in environmental samples, due to their environmentally hazardous properties including for example high persistence, high toxicity to aquatic organisms, or endocrine disrupting properties, may pose risk to the environment. Depending on the level of treatment, WWTPs’ effluents can be a significant pathway of micropollutants to the environment, in particular for those that originate from household products and -articles, or personal use. As knowledge of the environmental situation with regard to those pollutants can be improved, survey based on existing national data, screening studies and monitoring programs should be considered as a first step. The other activity should concentrate on knowledge on wastewater from treatment plans as sources of micropollutants in the environment and evaluation of existing and novel WWT techniques by compiling existing information on e.g. feasibility, costs, and good practice.

Spatial coverage The Baltic sea (and possible coordination with OSPAR) Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Start during 2016, until 2017

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The activities are aimed on identification of micropollutants problem scale facilitating the analysis of the need for future measures in the BSR countries as well as indicate possible and feasible measures.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

• Step 1: Compilation and assessment of available information and data of micropollutants of concern for Contracting Parties in the Baltic Sea – during 2016 (PRESSURE)

• Step 2: Compile information from CPs of treatment techniques and experiences– during 2016/7

• Step 3: Summary report on advanced treatment techniques, including consideration of feasibility, costs, good practice and management options – during 2017

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

Lack/incompleteness of national data on micropollutants

Section 4.3 – Accidental pollution from maritime activities

4.3.1 Regional risk assessment tool for ships HELCOM type of action b. i) assessment tool

56

Type of coordination 2 – Regional measure Short description of the action / measure

In the recent past (2012), HELCOM BRISK and BRISK-RU projects delivered an assessment of risks for shipping accidents and resulting spills of oil and hazardous substances as well as proposed improvements in the response capacities and safety of navigation for consideration by the Contracting Parties. No Baltic Sea risk assessments have been carried out since these projects. A regional risk assessment tool for ships is needed to enable more frequent update on the risks for shipping accidents and spills from the Baltic Sea perspective to cater for constantly changing ship traffic patterns. In order to enable continuous development by the wider Baltic response community (including academia) the tool should be flexible, based on open source coding, and be run frequently (annually/biannually) with less resources than is typically done when using commercial applications. The main function would be to detect changes in shipping risks and point to the hot spot areas as a basis for:

− optimizing the preparedness and response capacities on regional and sub-regional levels (according to the Helsinki Convention and HELCOM Response Manual);

− detailed national/sub-regional/regional investigations and efforts to improve safety of navigation.

Such a tool should have application potential worldwide and for this reason this development could be undertaken together with one of the other regional seas. It could well be a further development of existing tools such as the IALA IWRAP and/or other approaches to risk assessment such as those utilized by FSA. The Baltic Sea could be a pilot area for a test run of the tool.

Spatial coverage The Baltic Sea (action to be possibly undertaken together with one of other regional seas)

Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Preparations for the activity could be started 2015/2016. Implementation could start in 2017 and end by 2019

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The action would contribute to building more efficient emergency and response capability and safer maritime traffic without accidental pollution.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

Specification of the tool would be based on the needs of the Contracting Parties as well as availability of the data (e.g. HELCOM AIS). Existing suitable risk assessment models and tools should be mapped, including in other regional seas.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

57

Section 4.4 – Spatial protection measures

4.4.1. Coordination of management measures of pressures and impacts on MPAs, in particular for adjacent transnational MPAs HELCOM type of action b. Management coordination ii. Plans, guidelines and manuals Type of coordination Not applicable (Regional coordination of management of MPAs) Short description of the action / measure

HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 (para m) recommends that HELCOM MPA related guidelines and guiding documents should be updated as necessary in order to keep them in line with new knowledge and compatible with other international criteria

Coordinated management guidelines for the same pressures in the same area gives adjacent transnational MPAs better and more comprehensive protection of species the marine nature values in these areas.

Spatial coverage Baltic Sea Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Provide a first insight to coordination of management of measures in adjacent transnational MPAs by 2016. If the action is expanded to include a review and revision of HELCOM guidelines for management plans in general (point 9, step 3), the action is estimated to take several years and will need implementation through a project.

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

When management plans in adjacent transnational MPAs are well coordinated the pressures can be dealt in a cost-effective way in the whole area. The action will contribute to achievement of HELCOM Recommendation 35-1,

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

1) identify adjacent transnational MPAs using HELCOM MPA database and invite Contracting Parties to inform on any contacts between MPA managers,

2) make an inventory of the steps and management measures that Contracting Parties have already taken in MPAs, e.g. concerning fisheries and shipping,

3) investigate if existing management guidelines relevant for the Baltic Sea provide sufficient guidance to address pressure and impacts, including HELCOM guidelines and those related to the Habitats and Birds Directive, and as need may arise identify where HELCOM can provide complementary guidance, in particular for management of transnational MPAs.

The activity should be carried out linked to the development of conservation plans for e.g. HELCOM Red listed species, also considering the adequate protection of species in adjacent MPAs. The information in the HELCOM MPA database should be up to date regarding the MPA management plans, including for transnationally located MPAs. Network for managers responsible for these MPAs should be established.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

There may be no management plans for these areas and not enough resources to do the work

58

4.4.2 How to consider MPAs in Maritime Spatial Planning and vice versa? HELCOM type of action b. Management coordination ii. Plans, guidelines and manuals Type of coordination Not applicable. (Regional coordination of MPA/MSP processes). Short description of the action / measure

The Ecosystem approach provides guiding principles for Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP). MSP is to consider any restrictions and regulations to MPAs provided through MPA management plans. Some activities are however allowed within MPAs, while conservation objectives may be affected by activities causing pressure outside the MPAs. Thus, MPA/MSP interaction is not delimited by the MPA borders and there is a need to consider activities both inside and outside MPAs in the MSP context and vice versa.

Spatial coverage Baltic wide mainly Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

The action could start in 2016. Tentatively development of regional guidelines could take up to 3 years.

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

MPAs will be properly taken into account in MSPs and vice versa contributing to the application of HELCOM-VASAB Regional broad scale regional MSP principles.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

1) Contracting Parties in HELCOM VASAB MSP WG could be invited to inform on how MPAs have been considered so far in national MSP plans as well as any background information already compiled by the group with a view to sharing information with State and Conservation,

2) set up a workshop or back-to-back meeting with State and Conservation and HELCOM-VASAB MSP Working Group to discuss how the action can be jointly taken forward.

The workshop could explore options for how to acknowledge MPAs in MSP and vice versa (possible options are protocol/guidance, amended workplans, ad hoc meetings etc. In the longer-term some form of joint regional guidelines could tentatively be developed.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

There is little experience in establishing national MSP

4.4.3 Develop joint tools/approach for assessing effectiveness of spatial protection measures for individual sites as well as network level HELCOM type of action 3. b. Management coordination iii. Assessment tool Type of coordination Not applicable. (Regionally coordinated approach to assess

effectiveness of measures). Short description of the action / measure

HELCOM Recommendation 35/1 calls for assessing “the effectiveness of the management plans or measures of HELCOM MPAs by conducting monitoring, and where feasible scientific research programmes, which are directly connected to the conservation interests of HELCOM MPAs, including the placement of monitoring stations inside the MPAs“ (para k).

59

Spatial coverage Whole Baltic Sea, and possibly for use in other marine regions as well.

Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

The action could start in 2016 but the start will depend on resources. It can be noted that HELCOM is partner to a 2015 Life+ application where development of an approach to assess management effectiveness of MPAs is included.

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The action will contribute with information on the effectiveness of MPAs and MPA networks for future decision making. The action will contribute to the fulfillment of HELCOM Recommendation 35-1.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

1) Meeting to transfer lessons learnt from OSPAR process. 2) Develop criteria on how to assess effectiveness of

management for single MPAs and for the network as a whole, making use of work carried out in OSPAR and elsewhere.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

To develop an approach to assess effectiveness is considered to require project support.

Section 4.5 – Conservation, restoration and/or reintroduction of species and biotopes/habitats

4.5.1 Activities to support conservation of Baltic Sea species and biotopes/habitats categorized as threatened according to the HELCOM Red List HELCOM type of action b Management coordination ii. Plans, guidelines and manual, v

Follow-up assessment of agreed actions and plans Type of coordination 2- Regional measure Short description of the action / measure

A set of actions aimed at improving the state of Red listed species and biotopes/habitats in the Baltic Sea are included in this action. For effective conservation several supporting analyses are planned to be undertaken with the view of coordinating measures as relevant (State and Conservation 1-2014). Based on these analyses, area specific conservation programs to protect species and biotopes/habitats categorized as threatened according to the HELCOM Red List could be developed for the following basins: A,B,C,D. When applicable, the implementation of the programs will be coordinated by relevant contracting parties. In addition, the State and Conservation Working Group should develop “by 2017 guiding documents on conservation, recovery or action plans and/or related management measures for HELCOM threatened species, biotopes/habitats or species groups and their habitats”. These guidelines will directly support the implementation of area specific conservation programs and the improvement of HELCOM Red listed species and biotopes/habitats.

60

Spatial coverage Analyses and guidelines will be developed with a Baltic Sea perspective, however to consider a wider geographic perspective as needed for migratory species. Coordinated measures could furthermore be relevant on a sub-basin scale.

Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

2016-2020

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The action will contribute to the BSAP goal to reach “A favorable conservation status of Baltic Sea biodiversity” and more specifically to the implementation of HELCOM Recommendation 37/2 “Conservation of the Baltic Sea species categorized as threatened according to the 2013 HELCOM Red List” aiming at the protection and conservation measures for HELCOM threatened species.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

1) to make an inventory of existing measures that will contribute to the improved status of threatened species and biotopes/habitats and analyze if they are sufficient to improve the state of those species

2) based on this gap analysis; identify the need for new measures and for which new measures it could be suitable to consider joint measures (regional plans) or coordinated measures (coordination of national measures

3) Development of by 2017 guiding documents on conservation, recovery or action plans and/or related management measures for HELCOM threatened species, biotopes/habitats or species groups and their habitats

State and Conservation Working Group to lead the activities. Agreed analyses on existing measures to be carried out by Contracting Parties. A Lead Country approach to be considered for development of the guidelines. It should also be considered to set up an intersessional HELCOM group to address conservation of species and biotopes/habitats.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

Limited political support, capacity or resources to implement the actions

Section 4.6 – Physical loss and damage to the seafloor

4.6.1 Development of joint principles for defining environmental targets for seabed habitats HELCOM type of action b Management coordination, ii Plans, guidelines and manuals Type of coordination Not applicable (Regional coordination to define principles for

determining reduction needs for pressures on seabed habitats)

61

Short description of the action / measure

Through the BalticBOOST project HELCOM will develop joint principles and good practices for defining environmental targets for the anthropogenic pressures affecting seabed habitats. To support the development of such environmental targets the project will, as a starting point, explore ways to determine how much disturbance from different activities that specific seabed habitats can tolerate while remaining in Good Environmental Status (GES). The targets need to ensure a sustainable level of human activities (safe-guarding a sustainable future use of the marine resources), while not compromising progress towards GES. The work will focus on some of the major impacts connected with fisheries using mobile bottom contacting gears (otter trawls, Danish seines, Scottish Seines, dredges, beam trawls) but will also address other pressures from human activities on seabed habitats (e.g. dredging, construction etc.). Based on the information gathered the project will suggest principles and good practices for defining environmental targets.

Spatial coverage The joint principles will be developed with a Baltic Sea perspective. Environmental targets will eventually likely need to be developed with more restricted perspective (e.g. by sub-basins and further specified for specific habitat types).

Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

BalticBOOST started in September 2015 and ends in December 2016.

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The activity will contribute to reaching the ecological objective under the biodiversity segment of the Baltic Sea Action Plan to “restoring and maintaining sea floor integrity at a level that safeguards the functions of the ecosystems”.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

The activities will be carried out under the BalticBOOST project. HELCOM GEAR and FISH Group as well as HOLAS II Core team will be consulted in the implementation of the project activity. Guidance for the development of principles will be provided through two workshops with expert participation from HELCOM Contracting Parties. Recommend to link the project actions to the update of the HELCOM Rec 36/2.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

NA (project resources available)

62

Section 4.7 – Selective extraction and incidental by-catch of species

4.7.1 Adjustment or utilization of EU data collection framework to retrieve data for assessments and the development of management measures related to by-catch of species HELCOM type of action a. Measures v .Joint actions with the aim of influencing

international regulations b. d. Data and information; i. Data

Type of coordination a v.=4 - Joint regional action in relation to third parties For d_i: Not applicable (Regional coordination of data retrieval).

Short description of the action / measure18

Joint HELCOM countries being also EU member estates input to: the new EC proposal for Data Collection Framework, new multiannual programs for data collection and regional DCF groups. New DCF Regulation has been proposed in July 2015, in order to make DCF compliant with the reformed Common Fisheries Policy. It is proposed that the new DCF Regulation will define the frameworks for EU multiannual programme for data collection, which will be prepared after adoption of a Regulation. Multiannual programme for data collection will define only stable and basic variables, but other parameters will be more flexible and can be changed with time. The role of regional DCF groups will be strengthen and these groups will decide many of the details. This approach is in line with regionalisation under the reformed Common Fisheries Policy. Such an EU approach may provide room for HELCOM to provide and communicate needs for data collection with the view to be able to scientifically assess the impact of fisheries in the Baltic Sea. This action could facilitate in:

• Contributing to enhance data collection on incidental catches of harbour porpoise, seals and water birds mainly in the Baltic Sea by-catch “hot spots”, for relevant fisheries (commercial/recreational fishing)

• Identify the most relevant data collection needs on by-catch of protected fish species present in coastal waters

Spatial coverage The Baltic Sea Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

To start in late 2016 depending on an EU progress on this issue

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

Consultation with BALTFISH, and cooperation with ICES and ASCOBANS, BSAC as well as NSAC and Scheveningen group regarding Kattegat is needed. Trust-building, cooperation and transparency in data use vis-à-vis fishers is equally needed. Currently DCF is designed for collecting fisheries data and is limited in collecting environmental elements. Therefore, in order to ensure that relevant data on by-catches of protected species

18 Cooperation with Russia on the issue of by-catches is needed.

63

are collected, priority should be given on the fleet segments, where the by-catch rate is the highest.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

1) Make an inventory of what kind of data is needed from DCF for the HELCOM purposes, and what kind of data will be needed for HELCOM Baltic Sea indicators and environment assessments. 2) Ensure that data collected and used in scientific analyses is systematically used by HELCOM or relevant body; 3) Preparation of a HELCOM letter to the EC indicating the preliminary needs of HELCOM in the framework of the reformed Data Collection Framework. Taking into account coordination importance in the implementation of the MSFD in the Baltic Sea region, it should be indicated, that within collection of the “ecosystem data to assess the impact of Union fisheries on the marine ecosystem in Union and external waters, including data on by-catch of non-target species, in particular species protected under international or Union law, data on impacts of fisheries on marine habitats and data on impacts of fisheries on food webs” (art. 5 point 2. (b of the current DCF ”bible”) HELCOM would like to be involved in future data collection process at a regional level; 2. Providing HELCOM comments to the project of the Multiannual Community Programme to support the DCF, prepared after adoption of the new DCF regulation, regarding collection of the ecosystem data. 3. Providing HELCOM expert knowledge on environmental issues within DCF though liaising with Regional Coordination Groups. This will provide an opportunity to use certain anonymized marine ecosystem data coming from DCF including data from recreational fisheries, in order to successfully implement environmental obligations for the Baltic Sea region including under MSFD for HELCOM countries being EU member states. Within the regional coordinating groups HELCOM should also aim at ensuring cooperation with Russia regarding the exchange of environmental data.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

Currently DCF is designed for collecting fisheries data and does not take into account environmental elements. It is uncertain if focus on environmental aspects of new DCF could be achieved. Problems with obtaining by-catch data from commercial and recreational fisheries could appear. It might also be challenging to design sampling.

4.7.2 Testing alternative fishing gears/fishing techniques to minimize incidental catch through joint project/projects HELCOM type of action a Measures. iv HELCOM Recommendations that require

implementation through measures and b. Management coordination ii Plans, guidelines and manuals

Type of coordination a_iv:= 2 - Regional measure

64

For b_ii: Not applicable (Regional coordination of national technical developments to reduce by-catch)

Short description of the action / measure

The project HELCOM BALTFIMPA aimed at development of a selective and more environmental friendly fishing gears comparing to currently used, has not been continued after failing to obtain LIFE + financing. At the same time, measures in order to minimize negative impact of fisheries on protected species are urgently needed. Therefore, this is a proposal for continuation of activities proposed under HELCOM BALTFIMPA project with special emphasis on minimization of incidental catch problem. Several of the topics are already agreed as a work plan of the HELCOM FISH group. Information on planning the projects and its outcomes could be provided to BALTFISH. Information provided by the project should be useful for decision makers to implement measures to reduce incidental catch and by-catch of threatened and endangered species, especially in MPAs. MAMBO19 project proposal should be taken into account. Relevant financial support for the project coordination should be ensured. National activities under the project for countries being also EU members, could be covered by EMFF 2014-2020.

Spatial coverage Baltic Sea Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Start planning in 2016, start a project in2017-2018

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

Information provided by the project should be useful for decision makers to implement measures to reduce by-catch of threatened and endangered species, especially in MPAs

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

HELCOM, in cooperation with other relevant organizations, to serve as an information exchange and coordination platform, for mainly nationally funded activities regarding alternative gear development and testing to minimize incidental catch and by-catch particularly in HELCOM MPAs20 and identified hot spots.

• Define potential “hot spots” for incidental catch in the Baltic Sea, including spatial information regarding their location and estimated size

• Make an inventory of available alternative fishing gears/techniques including traditional ones based on existing information, work in other fora and completed and ongoing projects and analyse their usefulness for addressing incidental catch, especially in “hot spots” areas. This should be done in cooperation with fishermen, scientists and nature conservation experts,

19 MAMBO project – Management Actions and Conservation Measures for the Baltic Sea Odontocete. 20 Former BSAPs

65

• Consider a need for and added value of regional guidelines for fishing in MPAs based on the existing EU and national guidelines

• If useful, prepare HELCOM guidance concerning friendly fishing techniques/gears to minimize incidental catch in HELCOM MPAs* (and possibly in “hot spot” areas) in the Baltic Sea

• Prepare regional guidance for fishermen based on inter alia the HELCOM work on the issue.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

Relevant financial support for the project coordination should be ensured.

Section 4.8 – Introduction of non-indigenous species

4.8.1 Regional monitoring programme on non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea HELCOM type of action b. ii; Plans, guidelines and manuals

d. i, ii; Data, Databases Type of coordination 2 - Regional measure Short description of the action / measure

The Regional monitoring programme on non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea will provide objective information needed for the evaluation of the progress made towards achieving management goals defined by EU MSFD, EU IAS Regulation, IMO BWMC, and other legislation acts.

Spatial coverage The Baltic Sea Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Start in 2016

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

Regional monitoring program on NIS together with centralized NIS database is the only way to obtain objective, scientifically verified information needed for the evaluation of the progress towards management goals as well as for decision making (e.g. for granting ballast water management exemptions under IMO BWMC). National monitoring programmes to be taken into account.

66

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

Milestones, selected, preliminary: • 2016 (beginning) Workshop to discuss the aim and

structure of the monitoring program. • 2016/2017: Establishment of a regional database on

non-indigenous species to accommodate monitoring data built on the existing AquaNIS database and the HELCOM/OSPAR risk assessment tool

• 2017/8: NIS Monitoring Guidelines, including different monitoring methods based on existing experience to be reviewed.

Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

Section 4.9 – Input of litter (Germany)

4.9.1 Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter (coordinated implementation) HELCOM type of action a.i – Reduction of pressures

a.iv – HELCOM Recommendations that require implementation through measures a.v – Joint actions with the aim of influencing international regulations b.ii – Plans, guidelines and manuals

Type of coordination 2 - Regional measure and 1 - Regional coordination of national measure

Short description of the action / measure

The Regional Action Plan includes a set of 1. collective regional actions 2. voluntary national actions (coordinated through the

RAP) to address:

- land-based sources - sea-based sources - removal actions - education and outreach on marine litter.

The RAP includes a requirement for reporting by Contracting Parties on the implementation of the agreed actions and their effectiveness. Link to RAP Link to HELCOM ML webpage

Spatial coverage The Baltic Sea and coordination with OSPAR and other regional seas convention regarding the implementation of marine-litter related activities of common interest.

Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Start in 2015

67

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

The activities at both regional and national level target the reduction of marine litter from the major land- and sea-based sources as well as the removal of litter already present in the riverine and marine environment and will therefore contribute to reducing inputs of litter to, and amounts of litter in, the sea.

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

Milestones, selected: • 2016: Making regional actions operational while

developing them further into concrete measures • Different timelines for the implementation of regional

actions (2016 - 2019) Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)

Section 4.10 – Inputs of energy including underwater noise

4.10.1 Regional Baltic Underwater Noise Roadmap 2015-2017 HELCOM type of action b. ii; Plans, guidelines and manuals Type of coordination 2 – Regional measure Short description of the action / measure

The REGIONAL BALTIC UNDERWATER NOISE ROADMAP 2015-2017 outlines a stepwise approach for providing the necessary basis and preparation for the development of measures, including: 1. Knowledge gathering 2. Indicators 3. Explore possibility to determine acceptable levels of underwater noise for marine species 4. Evaluation and follow-up

Spatial coverage The Baltic sea (and coordination with OSPAR on the establishment of a regional registry of sound)

Recommended start and duration, if appropriate, of action / measure (temporal coverage)

Start in 2015

Contribution of the action / measure to achieve the target

Proposed activities for implementation (very briefly)

The work with the Roadmap will be led by the HELCOM Expert Network on Underwater Noise, under the Pressure group. Milestones, selected, preliminary:

• 2015: Pre-core indicator development, coordination around registry of sound

• 2016: Workshop to discuss the Roadmap • By mid 2016: Establishment of regional registry of

impulsive sound Obstacles to implementation (at regional and CP level)